From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 07 2005 - 22:11:12 BST
Howdy MOQers:
Some of this comes from the "Scientific beliefs and religious faith" thread:
Sam said to Mark:
Now, beyond that, are you familiar with the notion that 'there are no
uninterpreted facts'? And if so, would you agree? In other words, for any
particular given phenomenon, there are a multitude of explanations, and the
choice between the explanations is not driven by the nature of the 'facts'
themselves - there is, instead, a dialectic between fact and interpretation
which is continuously evolving. So there are no naked facts waiting to be
assessed, there is always 'fact + interpretation', which fits in with the
wider understandings how they may.
dmb says:
Sure, we have to take into account the interpretive nature of language and,
sure, a multitude of explanations are possible. But you, Matt and others are
letting this insight lead you to absurd conclusions. You're taking a rather
extreme position that seems to allow any interpretation now matter how
unjustified or unfounded. I mean, you seem to think that we can each simply
choose to interpret the world any way we like, but that's just not how it
works, fellas. Even if we assume for the moment that interpretation is the
only reality, it still has a structure and a shape and a certain solidity to
its existence that we cannot simply wish away. And then there are basic
standards that help us sort out valid interpretations from the hair-brained
ones. As Ken Wilber puts it, a diamond will cut glass no matter what words
we use to describe "diamond", "cut" and "glass" and no matter what culture
does the cutting.
And I should add that one of the points in presenting you with the idea of
transubstantiation was to show how the various interpretations work
together, to show that there is a core meaning behind those variations and
that a side by side analysis helps to reveal that meaning. It could be that
I've missed something, but I have seen no real response to that yet. As I
see it, your position is entirely defeated by it. Maybe that's why the
replies have been zip, zero, nada. I mean, why interpret it through faith
when there is such a vast and rich body of evidence? Makes no sense to me.
Sam also said:
...................................... The belief in the divinity of Jesus
is not something that can be established to the satisfaction of an
empirically-based world-view. But to say there is no 'evidence' of it is
automatically to discount any and all 'evidence' given through the lives of
Christians. In other words, it is part and parcel of how a Christian will
*interpret* their experience.
dmb says:
You really don't see the circularity here? The Christian will interpret
their experience through their belief in the divinity and that decision to
believe is evidence of the truth of that belief? Sorry, but I find it
impossible to muster any respect for that kind of argument. As Pirsig put
it, if it weren't for the fact that so many people believed it, Christianity
would be considered a form of insanity.
msh asked Sam:
But we have to agree on word definitions if we hope to engage in meaningful
conversation, no?
Sam replied:
I think the agreement on word definitions is sometimes the outcome of
meaningful conversation, not the presupposition for it. But more
importantly, the OED is secular, and I won't (automatically) accept its
authority.
dmb says:
The dictionary is secular? Again, you're going too far. The dictionary only
describes how people use words and you simply don't get to re-write
etymological history just because you don't like it. Again, the
intersubjective reality we share has a shape and a structure and a reality
that does not alter by whims and wishes. It creates us, not the other way
around. The dictionary is just one small way to get at that collective
structure.
msh said to Sam:
....................................., DMB said that this is how
theologians protect themselves from scientific criticism, claiming,
basically, for example in this case (TS), there is a substantial
change that is not measurable by science, but is nevertheless real.
sam said back:
........................ But also there wasn't much of a 'scientific'
problem when TS began. The 'evidence' is perceived through faith, however
you want to define 'nevertheless real'. Or is the argument that only what is
scientific is real? (does anyone who accepts the MoQ believe that?)
dmb says:
As I understand it, truth is a species of the Good. It is a high quality
intellectual description and high quality has to include agreement with
experience and logical consistancy. The position that the host transforms in
a way that is undetectable only to those who believe it does is a position
that meets neither of those basic standards.
Again, it seems that you're straining and twisting to defend a doctrine
about a ritual and in that effort you've utterly failed to say anything
meaningful or even intelligible about the meaning of that ritual. This is
the problem with doctrines and dogmas; they block out the light and prevent
the rituals from expressing the DQ that they were originally intended to
convey. There is no beef on that burger, gents. Its been rendered empty and
meaningless by all the theological gobble-dee-gook. And even worse, it seems
that none of you mind that you're doing damage to valuable intellectual
explanations along the way. Let's see if you can guess who said this. And
more importantly, let's see if you can guess which of your points are under
attack here...
"The DEMAND FOR EVIDENCE - or validity claims - which has always anchored
genuine and progressive science, simply means that one's own ego cannot
impose on the universe a view of reality that finds no support from the
universe itself. The validity claims and evidence are the ways in which we
attune ourselves to the Kosmos. The validity claims force us to confront
reality; they curb or egoic fantasies and self-centered ways; they demand
evidence from the rest of the Kosmos; they force us outside ourselves! They
are the checks and balances in the Kosmis Constitution.
But it was exaclty these checks and balances, these curbs on narcissim, that
the mis-Kuhnisn 'new-paradigm' thinkers of almost every variety implicitly
or explicitly attempted to erase. And behind it all lay, in part, 'the
culture of narcissism'. Professor David Couzens Hoy points out that 'freeing
theory from its object' - that is, erasing the demand for evidence - 'may
open it up to all the possibilities of rich imaginations; yet if there is
now no truth of the matter,, then nothing keeps it from succumbing to the
sickness of the modern imagination's obsessive self-consciousness.' Theory
thus becomes 'only the critic's own ego-gratification'. The culture of
narcissism. 'The sheer struggle for power ensues, and criticism becomes not
latent but blatant aggression,' part of 'the emergent nihilism of recent
times'."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 07 2005 - 22:17:50 BST