From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 19:26:39 BST
Hi again Sam,
SAM
Don't you think it at all odd that you
> 'don't see any real parallel between your views of Christianity and those
of
> the average Christian' - when I have been given authority by a mainstream
> church for *teaching* 'average' Christians? Whose views are representative
> of the mainstream?
RICK
That's a fair point I guess. But I think DMB's recent statistical post
responds to this point well. Moreover, I may not have the 'credentials' to
argue with you about what the mainstream thinks, but does Campbell....?
CAMPBELL
It seems quite incongruous to use the name 'God' to signify THAT which we
experience immediately, before thought has sundered it into a world of
things. This may be what Hindus mean by 'Brahmin' and Buddhists by 'Tathata'
(that-ness), but it is certainly not what the majority of thoughtful
Christians have understood as God the Father....
RICK
Using 'god' to signify that which we experience immediately sounds much like
your alignment of god with DQ. Campbell seems to think that's the minority
opinion among the majority of thoughtful Christians.
CAMPBELL
Christian dogma combines a mythological story which is for the most part
Hebrew, and a group of metaphysical 'concepts' which are Greek, and then
proceeds to treat both as statements of fact - as information about
objective realities inhabiting (a) the world of history, and (b) the
'supernatural' world existing parallel to the historical, but on a higher
plane.
RICK
Campbell seems to think (like I do) that Christian dogma treats mythological
stories and ideas as statements of fact.
SAM
> I see revelation as, philosophically speaking, no different to what
happens
> in 'paradigm shifts'...
> So, the basic decision between competing worldviews is an emotional one,
ie
> an evaluation (strictly: an assessment of value)....
...The perception that Jesus incarnates
> God is revelation, ie it is not something that can be achieved by the
> unaided human reason. Philosophically, it has no different status to a
> fifteenth century dispute between Ptolemists and Copernicans...
RICK
I think I agree with your basic thought here about 'paradigm shifts'. It is
like a fifteenth century dispute. But this is the 21st century, where the
idea that Ptolemic model can adequately explain our observations of universe
has been abandoned... it was a one-way paradigm shift. There are no
Ptolemists anymore. Pragmatically speaking, their views just don't have any
value in light of our newer observations. Moreover, nobody goes around
claiming that the Ptolemic model is more 'fundamental' or 'far-reaching'
than the Copernican model... which seems to me what you're trying to do with
theology and philosophy.
SAM
What is claimed by
> Christians is that it is compatible with reason, that there are no
ultimate
> contradictions in the Christian faith.
RICK
Well, surely you can't mean the Bible. I think it is very well established
that both the old and new testaments are filled with contradictions (both
'internally' with themselves and 'externally' with historical evidence).
SAM
> The atheist perspective (eg Dawkins/Dennett) does not enjoy a superior
> cognitive status - it is just as 'irrational' as a theistic or Christian
or
> Buddhist or Islamic perspective. Of course, I think it is profoundly
lacking
> in value - it is parochial, small-minded and ultimately incoherent - but I
> don't think that my perspective can be *proven* by reason. Ultimately you
> either 'see' that it lacks value or you don't.
RICK
Ultimately, my view is that there is nothing in reality which requires 'god'
as an explanation.
SAM
However, I would say that
> Dawkins' perspective is incompatible with the MoQ - would you agree with
> that?
RICK
Oh heck yeah. Right off the bat, any materialistic philosophy will be
incompatible with the MoQ.
take care
rick
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 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 19:30:22 BST