RE: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 23:49:13 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Intellectual Art (Dynamic Morality)"

    Rick, Sam and all:

    > RICK objected:
    I think you're blurring the margins again. You seem to be implying that
    because the Christian discipline of 'apatheia' involves emotional distancing
    and because science involves emotional distancing then science must be
    compatible with Christianity (or vice versa). But the logic doesn't flow.
    It's saying that because two things share one common feature they must agree
    with each other completely.

    Sam replied:
    I think the difference is to do with the 'intended object', ie what is
    studied. Science is simply the discipline of apatheia applied to a
    particular form of knowledge - which is ultimately trivial, IMHO. I would
    argue that apatheia *includes* science, and that therefore, theology is the
    more fundamental or far-reaching intellectual framework.

    DMB says:
    Once again, Rick has saved me lots of work. I'd only add to his objections
    here. While it may be true in the broadest and vaguest of terms that both
    "apatheia" and science involve some mental discipline, it seems obvious that
    they have little else in common and can hardly be compared. They have
    completely different standards, practices and aims. Surrendering your will
    to God can hardly be compared to the systematic investigation of the world.

    Science is trivial? Gotta give Sam points for orginality on that one. Never
    heard that one before. I disagree and think science is awesome, exciting and
    profoundly important. And if theology were a more "far-reaching intellectual
    framework", then we would use theology to investigate philosophy, rather
    than the other way around. Presposterous is exactly the right word; the back
    is where the front should be. And if that is not enough, Sam said....

    A good case could be made that Newton was the first fundamentalist.

    I think science is included within religion.

    It's the ideology that says such things *need* to be 'backed up' that is in

    Why then were most of the 9/11 leaders people with scientific degrees?

    Our fundamental intellectual stance is not a matter of rational enquiry.

    DMB continues:
    I don't want to actually engage with any of these assertions, but they
    provoke a strange kind of morbid curiousity. Is this an April Fools Day
    joke? Is it madness? Has Sam so far over-reached that his arm will need to
    be surgically re-attached? Ouch! Was there very much blood? I only hope he's
    well insured. :-)

    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 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 23:51:16 BST