Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Tom Caylor writes:
>
> > One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
> > and cause were foundational to modern science.  We have to assume that
> > there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to
> > make sense of it.  Reality has to "make sense" inherently, i.e. it has
> > to have an order to it, in order for us to "make sense" of it.  Our
> > reason (rationality) makes use of antithesis, to induce cause and
> > effect.  Perhaps nature and cause do not appear as formal assumptions
> > in comp, but do you not make use of a belief in them in the process of
> > thinking and talking about comp, and surely in the process of
> > empirically verifying/falsifying it?
>
> Who said nature has to make sense? We make sense of it to the extent that it
> is ordered, but it goes:
>
> we can make sense of nature, therefore it must be ordered,
>
> not,
>
> nature must be ordered, therefore we should be able to make sense of it.
>
> You didn't exactly say the latter, I know, but my assumption is that the 
> universe
> doesn't care in the slightest what I think or what happens to me, which is not
> something theists are generally comfortable with.
>

So you understand my point: Reality does not have to make sense (in the
grand non-scheme of Everthing), but it does.

> > Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
> > an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
> > is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
> > being there).  The existence of the personal God answers the questions:
> >
> > 1) Why is there something rather than nothing?  i.e. the question of
> > the origin of the form of the universe, why does it "make sense"?  What
> > is the basis for the nature of reality and beauty?
> > 2) Why is man the way he/she is?  Why is man able to have language and
> > do science, and make sense of the world?  Why is man able to love and
> > figure out what is right?  What is the basis for meaning?  What is the
> > basis for mind?  How can persons know one another?
> > 3) Why is man able to know anything, and know that he knows what he
> > knows?  What is the basis for truth?  What is truth?
>
> The first two questions are difficult, but they apply to God as much as the 
> universe,
> despite ontological argument trickery whereby God is just defined as existing 
> necessarily
> (Gaunilo's answer to Anselm was that you can also just define a "perfect 
> island" as an
> island which exists necessarily, and therefore cannot not exist).
>
> The other questions are easy: blind evolution made us this way.
>

The word "blind" here is a statement of faith in impersonality.  I
would paraphrase Brent Meeker and ask, "Why does 'blind' have to be the
default?"  My response to Bruno addresses the assumption of
impersonality.

> > However, from the birth of modern science, we have taken a journey to
> > dispense with any kind of faith and try to be exhaustive in our
> > automony and control.  Ironically we have abandoned rationality
> > (including antithesis), and we have abandoned ourselves to ourselves.
> > We are lost in a silent sea of meaningless 0's and 1's, and man is a
> > machine.
> >
> > This is why I said that when we put ourselves at the center of our
> > worldview, it is a prison.
>
> Er, science is usually taken as more concerned with rationality than religion 
> and
> less anthropocentric than religion. Turning it around seems more a rhetorical 
> ploy
> than a defensible position.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

Science has to take rationality by faith.  Without a personal God both
science and religion are anthropocentric because in such a
configuration there is no one else besides us.

Tom


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to