From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:25:03 BST
Hi Rick,
On Campbell, see my reactions to DMB.
> 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.
I'm not convinced that Campbell is well informed on that score. But I'll
have to read him a bit more to know for sure.
> RICK
> Campbell seems to think (like I do) that Christian dogma treats
mythological
> stories and ideas as statements of fact.
When would you say the distinction between 'mythological stories' and 'ideas
as statements of fact' kicked in? What is the philosophical framework in
which it makes sense? Can that framework be criticised?
> 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.
The analogy breaks down if you take it too far. Would you accept that a
religious framework (generic, not specifically Christian) says more about
human life than a strictly scientific framework (ie all the questions of
value etc)? And if so, which would you say was more important - the
religious or the scientific? Which one includes the other?
> 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).
Quite. I didn't mean the Bible - that's why I said 'faith'. Although the
nature and extent of such contradictions is often exaggerated.
> RICK
> Ultimately, my view is that there is nothing in reality which requires
'god'
> as an explanation.
Fair enough. The idea that 'god' was an explanation (in a scientific sense)
was of course only something that kicked in in the seventeenth century.
> RICK
> Oh heck yeah. Right off the bat, any materialistic philosophy will be
> incompatible with the MoQ.
Cool. So would you think that science (as presently constructed) is a
materialistic philosophy?
Sam
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 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:58:22 BST