________________________________
[Marxism] Biblical "truth" paul illich paul_illich at hotmail.com <mailto:marxism%40lists.econ.utah.edu?Subject=%5BMarxism%5D%20Biblical%20%22 truth%22&In-Reply-To=E1EN9W9-0006Ed-Ob%40lists.econ.utah.edu> Nor should it be forgotten that Teilhard de Chardin was not only a scientist Jesuit who was closely involved with the Peking Man discoveries, but also that he provided an RC vision of teleology, with the evolution of Man to a Godhead, the Omega Point - all very Hegelian. So the church has a long and recent, if ambiguous (after all, Chardin was not exactly top of the food cahin), history of resolving the supposed conflict between science and religion in a pseudo-scientific manner, just as the not-so-'new' ID debate tries to do. The latest special edition of Scientific American has a report on a conflab in Cambridge, England, that has theist and non-theist scientists face to face, and following excahnges occured: "Take the exchange between biologists Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge and Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford. Morris contended that intelligence is not a freak occurrence but a recurring theme in evolution, appearing in dolphins, parrots and crows as well as in primates. He speculated that any of these species might be capable of discovering God, but we had help--from Christ, whom God sent to Earth for our benefit. Dawkins, by far the most antireligious lecturer, praised Morris's evolutionary views but called his Christianity "gratuitous." Morris retorted that he found Dawkins's atheism "archaic" and asserted that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Christ were "historically verifiable." After more give-and-take, Morris, crossing his arms tightly across his chest, grumbled, "I'm not sure this conversation can go any further. "Dawkins also challenged the faith of physicist John Barrow, an Anglican. Like several other speakers, Barrow emphasized how extraordinarily "fine-tuned" the universe is for our existence. Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Dawkins asked. Why do you want to explain it with God? "For the same reason you don't want to," Barrow responded drily. Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, "That's not an answer!" "Disagreement divided believers as well. Physicist John Polkinghorne, a winner of the $1.4-million Templeton Prize, given annually to those who "advance spiritual matters," contended that physicists' understanding of causality is "patchy" and hence allows for a God who answers prayers and carries out the occasional miracle, such as parting the Red Sea. Another physicist and Templeton Prize winner, Paul Davies, discerned tentative evidence of design in the laws of nature but added, "As a physicist, I feel very uncomfortable with a God who intervenes" in human affairs." (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C055B-0CBB-1306-8A6883414B7F0 000&sc=I100322) Any discussion of biblical truth, literal interpretation and the ID or wider evolution debate will inevitably hit these walls. Simon Conway Morris and his bizarre asserrtion (from a so-called scientist) "that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Christ were 'historically verifiable' " seems to me laughable, and would lead me to distrust his objectivity in science reports. The point is made that a 'scientist' is a person who has science as an aspect of his life, and 'science' is a seperate abstract idea, so that therefore a scientist is not by necessity required to be as a hard-headed a rationalist as, say, Dawkins is, and other aspects of intelligence can inform their work. This becomes slightly nuts beyond a certain point (if 'science' is to have any meaning), assuming you can even swallow the last paragraph at all. Thus this passage from SA had me laughing even harder: "Tension was evident not only between speakers but also within individual minds. Nancey Murphy, a philosopher at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., described herself as a materialist who does not view the soul as a "spirit" separate from the body. Yet she believes in phenomena that many scientists might find hard to swallow, such as the resurrection of Christ and, at the end of time, of all humans. When a journalist pressed her to explain how resurrection might work, Murphy acknowledged that at times the discussion between science and religion "breaks down" because they involve "incommensurable schemes" for understanding reality." In the end, my position is that the religious wouldn't know 'truth' if they tripped over it, as they have precepts that are, frankly, weird distortions of reality (at best) or just plain insane. How can their conclusions be respected? That protestants believed in witches and in the literal truth of the bible (including no doubt that famous injunction against homosexuals, 'thou shalt not covet they neighbors ass') is true. That a catholic willingness to bend the rules, rewrite the bible, bin bits they don't like, invent polytheistic compromises for the locals (the trinity) and other sundry opportunist pursuits should not be forgotten before we extend the benfit of the doubt to them when they seem to embrace science. Chardin's philosophy interests me, but that too seems to be a fudge. A Catholic Fundamentalist is not any worse, really, that an Catholic opportunist hypocrite - better in away, as at least you know where you stand with the former. If you can allow your personal awareness of contradictions between a modern world view and the medievalist worldview to change the nature of your faith, then why not change to a church that actively believes what you believe, rather than one that merely tolerates convenient compromise? Or leave the church altogether? Paul ________________________________ * Previous message: [Marxism] immigration * Next message: [Marxism] immigration (response to K) * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ________________________________ More information about the Marxism mailing list <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism> _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
