The Christian Developers Network

In my shower today, I had a striking thought:

In C.S. Lewis' Perelandra trilogy, the Oyarsa (the archangel of Mars) was very much more concerned about Prof. Weston than he was about Weston's greedy, shallow companion, Dick Devine. A train of thought led from there to realizing that many more Christians are unplausibly upset about Madonna's legacy (and by a certain cultural extension, video games) than they are about Frank Sinatra's legacy. This train of thought was a branch off of the thought I had about Harry Potter's magic vs Occultic Magic vs Aslan's Deep Magic.

This concurs with what the Lord said: "Judge not according to appearance."

The reason why we should be more concerned about, say, Richard Dawkins, and less about British Petroleum, and more about Frank Sinatra, and less about Britney Spears, is because they are demonstrating opposite vices, in a sense.

When we see the carnality of the MTV top 40, and rightly object to it, why are we objecting to it? Perhaps we don't know ourselves, but I think it is this: it is a deficiency of humanity. They're acting like animals. The rappers and the rockers are following their basest instincts, pursuing pleasure, reacting to provocations with passion, etc. They are behaving in a manner unworthy of who they really are--human beings created in the image of God, using their God-given talents to satisfy their carnal lusts.

THE OPPOSITE problem is displayed by the late, great Frank Sinatra, and Richard Dawkins, and (fictionally) Prof. Weston. Rather than having a deficiency of humanity, they have a much more dangerous excess of it. "I did it My Way" not only elevated mankind above the animals, it elevated it above humanity, into the Greco-Roman heights of divinity. Dawkins suffers not from a lack of a human soul, but from an excess of the rationality that represents the human soul. Ironically, his schizophrenic interpretation of reality, denying the human soul, preaching that we are simply highly evolved animals, is proof that not only does he have a human soul, but that it lacks just enough of the animal side as to avoid any common sense.

And here again is something interesting. I've heard many preachers preach against the animalistic behavior of the one crowd, but not so much against the humanistic behavior of the other crowd. Yes, they preach against Evolution and Humanism with all the zealotry of a spiritual suicide bomber, but I believe the second problem is a bit too abstract. The irony here is that this actually agreeing with the enemies of our faith on a certain philosophical point they've gotten terribly wrong. Some of our foes see the world as entirely "sensible," and that everything needs to be seen through the eyes of empirical science. But however important empirical science is, there is another realm of thought--the intelligible & abstract, which was denied by many influential philosophers during the enlightenment, not without some unwitting irony.

This is the same sort of error that pits religion and science against one another, saying that we must choose the blind faith of religion or the pure reason of science.

Again, the premises must be questioned. Is the mark of religion blind faith? Is science "pure reason?" Faith, biblical faith, isn't necessarily blind. It simply means being persuaded that something is true. The means of persuasion can be logic, empirical evidence, intuition, authority, tradition, etc. Nor is science "pure reason." Science must assume at some things to be "a given." There have to be "First Principles" which are taken to be true as a matter of common knowledge. This is because we as human beings are limited in our knowledge. We are not all-knowing God. Further, scientists must at some point (hopefully) decide to actually do something, and at that point, whatever that point is, they must declare themselves to be satisfied with their information, and act on it. There can never be 100% certainty that something is true. That last bit of uncovered percentage, in order to be acted upon, has to be bridged by something akin to faith and hope. Faith, because they have been as persuaded as they can be, given their constraints, that the results will be as anticipated, and hope, because that's required to actually do anything.

But I digress. Abstraction, sadly, is not the strong suit of modern Christianity, and is sorely lacking.

Anyways, it was nice shower.

_________________
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69

Frank Sinatra? I thought he sang songs.

He did -- the song that RRO is referring to is one in particular.

_________________
""

._

Actually I would agree with the following quote

"test all things hold fast to that which proves true" - so I'm not sure I agree with your starting statement.

@ Cheesestorm,

1. Religion deals with the metaphysical (and therefore is philosophical in nature). An understanding of the world around us (and ourselves) is not only ascertained by some form of observation, but also by reasoning. The reasoning may be faulty or not, and accordingly, the conclusions will be faulty or not.

2. Verification of many principles in metaphysics comes by observation. If a man has a certain metaphysical opinion about human nature, he has nearly 7 billion people he can potentially observe (though not without some effort). If his hypothesis is "people are basically peaceful," and the mass of data shows that people are basically quarrelsome to some degree or another, his hypothesis is disproved. The man who has proposed that "people are basically quarrelsome" would be correct.

3. One of basic mistakes in modern thought (according to the late, great Mortimer Adler) is the assumption that only scientific observation brings us truth, and that every other "idea" is merely an opinion, at best. Been reading a book about this lately. Fun stuff. "Ten Philosophical Mistakes."



The fourth chapter of the book deals entirely with that subject

Link to the author's bio & summary of his thought, at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler

Wish I had met the man. Aristotlean. Smart guy.

_________________
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69

I have never observed the creation of the universe.

Therefore, the universe was not created.

Therefore, our existence is a contradiction.

Those who believe that science and observation are the only valid philosophies that one should hold are far more blind than any religious person. The independence of religion from observation makes it far less blind than any science.

_________________
Formerly CobraA1

Isn't a significant portion of science based on prediction of the effects rather than observation of causes?

_________________
M^2 out-
The Deut strikes back!
Its time to get Terminal!
Have I mentioned I love BLIDE?
New Creation Games

I might be derailing...

...but I like Sinatra's My Way.

_________________
Q.E.D.

All claims to truth are inherently circular.

_________________
""

._

I should seriously post a synopsis of Adler's book.

The idea that all claims to truth are circular SOUNDS true, because certain (false) philosophical concepts have been incorporated into modern conversation on the subject. But sounding true doesn't mean it is true. Every philosopher who lived prior to the Enlightenment would've coughed in shock and shame if they had heard someone say something like that.

Can't say I'm an expert on this, though. I've always thought, in some vague and uncomfortable way, that the whole "no claims to truth are vaild" was a bit off. I couldn't articulate it, though. Well... off to check out that book again...

_________________
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69

That's interesting..

Is it true that all claims to truth are circular?

Is it true that no claims to truth are valid?

I would go on but these questions make my brain hurt like I just ate a scoop of ice cream and I'm also reeling from the insult Cheesestorm tossed at all of us.

I'm not saying that no claims to truth are valid.

I'm just saying that, ultimately, Modernism failed. As I understand it, Modernism sought to start with ones-self ("cogito ergo sum" sorts of stuff), and ultimately wind up with a cohesive Theory Of Everything. Philosophers tried to do this over the centuries, and time after time were unable to arrive at a cohesive view of the world. Thence came the descent into Postmodernism, which overcorrected. If Modernism said that all meaningful truth is ultimately discernable from owns own point of view, then Postmodernism said that no meaningful truth is discernable (or if it is, it's not communicable).

I think that both extremes are incorrect. It is not possible to start with ones-self and logically arrive at all meaningful truth. It's not reasonable to assert that no truth is knowable or communicable.

Despite believing that claims to truth are circular, I think that there is exactly one thing which can break that circle:

Revelation.

_________________
""

._

Revelation can come in many forms. For example I may believe that reality is an mental illusion and that I can walk across the interstate and not take any damage. The revelation that shows I can't would be quite painful.

I can look at the old testament where the earth is called a circle suspended by nothing in emptiness and say God knew what it looked like, someone else may say - God was a space alien and that is how he knew.

While reading this, the scene of Jesus and the Samaritan woman comes to mind.
The Samaritan woman's response in many ways reflects modern day attitudes towards God.

To paraphrase, Jesus says "Give me a drink" to which the woman's reaction was very much culturally blindfolded - "You're a Jew, I'm a Samaritan - we aren't suppose to be talking to each other let alone asking for a drink!".

I find it even more amusing is the ongoing dialogue...each time Jesus offers and explains to her the gift of "living water" and eternal life, she responds in a tunnel vision like manner. "Give me this water so that I won't be thirsty and have to come out here again."

Jesus breaks this tunnel vision through a revelation of her life.

Immediately she responds with a bone of contention....you say that people should worship in Jerusalem...we say worship in the mountains....Jesus answer's never cease to amaze! Rather than argue with this dogma, he points to what God the Father is really after...for us to approach Him with our heart and spirit 100%. (John 4)

It seems that today's tunnel vision and dogma is that of so called "truth" through science and secularism. Religious organisation and individuals have no doubt been an accomplice (wittingly or unwittlingly so). But that's exact why Jesus came to tear away - the dogma of tradition of belief and understanding.

Over the last few centuries, science has built up a collection of hypotheses and beliefs that in many respect has become implied truth (tradition) or the only "truth" (e.g. Evolution).
Isn't this a religion in itself? I.e. the modern day dogma or I would even say religious belief of secularism?

This appears to hold a certain irony!

Certain high profile Evolutionist espouses the same zealous behaviours and dogma as other religious zealot, therefore logically it appears they are just as religious....oh...would they whince at that label

For those mathematicians out there....an empty set is a valid set therefore....

Let me sum up, without my notes here, what I've gather so far... or what I can remember off-hand:

1. John Locke & company started saying that we're not really directly aware of the world around us, but only our ideas (perceptions, imaginations, memories, conceptions) of the world around us. For him, and some others, we are aware only our perceptions, rather than being aware of the world THROUGH our perceptions.

2. Hume, Hobbes & Berkeley started saying that people don't really have abstract ideas, and that the only thing we really have is knowledge based on the senses. This meant that people were only different from the animals by degree, rather than kind.

3. Somewhere, somehow, and my notes are more detailed, somebody started saying that most words were meaningless, particularly those regarding things that weren't based on science and what not.

Anyways, there's a LOT more, and I'll post my notes in the next few days.

_________________
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69