Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology From Physics & Biology to Religion & TheologyGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| From Physics & Biology to Religion & Theology | Login/Join |
Phil,  We sympathize with a robot web server. We feel trapped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner We may be willing to betray another to escape the trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Perfectly arational/rationalization from rationality, eh wot? -------------------------------------------------- On another front, I am reading an online book about rational Ken Wilber, who appears to be losing some or all of his marbles, or is taking all of his marbles home to play by himself. Frightening where the Special "K" can lead us.... http://www.normaneinsteinbook.com/ Padded VIP room, table for one? shalom, a place, for special "k," spoonboy | ||||
|
Phil, As far as the question of violence within Islam, a question with which certain interest groups would have us thinking about 24/7, it may be advisable to heed the words of the Master, and pluck the beam from our own eye 24/7, so that we may see clearly enough to pick the speck from our brother's eye. Otherwise, events such as Pentagon Comtroller Dov Zakheim "misplacing" a trillion dollars escape our view. If we look closely at the roots of war, it is almost invariably intwined with greed. http://www.rollingstone.com/po...e_great_iraq_swindle http://quotes.prolix.nu.War/ For what this war is costing, we might have built a church/school/hospital complex in every major city over there, which would go a long way toward addressing other peoples' violence. It would also have given us the moral high ground, which would be in keeping with Gandhi and our own scriptures. Police work would be easier, as they would likely have denounced and handed over many "bad guys" to the authorities by now. According to a surviving Nuremberg judge, our own "bad guys" stand guilty of war crimes. Again we might do well to pluck the beam from our own eye, and then seeing clearly enough, after dismantling our own stockpiles of WMD, and the "brain" as it were, that maunufactures them, we might provide an example for others or develop the spiritual tools, through SEP for example, to win the peace. This would be in keeping with my understanding of Moses and the Prophets. Idealistic? Of course! After all this is, sincerely yours, spoonboy | ||||
|
I'm not sure why this lecturing me on specks in one's eye, mystic spoonboy. Maybe you should read my post above again; I wasn't saying anything about militant Islam. In the context of this discussion on levels of concern, I was pointing out how difficult it is for Islam to construct a political philosophy based on Koranic principles that does not tend toward theocracy. It did give you an slight opening to diss the U.S. on yet another thread, however. That's become tedious and wearisome. Take it somewhere else, please. | ||||
|
Phil, Christ is not divided, and everyone here admires and respects you personally, the Christian Faith and the United States of America, motherhood and apple pie, etc.  I would preface my remarks with that and that my intention and motive is to use SEP to seek for the truth and perhaps even the Truth as far as it can be discerned utilizing the tools of logic. Mr. Spock on the Star Trek series was frequently misinterpereted as to motives by the other crew members for failing to take into consideration certain human traits and emotions in his analysis when he had the tendency to sit nakedly before facts. If I have learned anything from you personally, and for which I am grateful, it is how to sit nakedly before a fact. If I have failed to do this, then please accept my heartfelt apologies. -------------------------------------------------- Let's turn our attention toward a sample case, actor Jon Voight, and his personal assessment of the current political reality, if we may: http://www.radaronline.com/fea...04/jon_voight_1.php/ The interviewer, Adam Laukhuf begins with a photo of actor John Voight in his current film September Dawn, which examines religious and ideological fanaticism in the United States circa 1857. Not a pleasant reality, but one pertinent to our current situation, and, I would suggest, vital to both rational analysis and the beginning point of all spiritual growth, however unflattering it may be to culturally conditioned sensibilities and tribal notions of collective righteousness stemming from attachments or addictions to mythic membership consciousness stemming from early childhood. I do not wish to "diss" Jon Voight, a great contemporary actor and artist who seems to be operating at a thoughtful and rational level, with love of country and integrity, albeit given a certain mindset and a certain set of "facts," many of which are intellectual abstractions provided by the opinion shapers of our time, as Brigham Young no doubt was circa 1857. I do with to call into question those facts, and the mindset that is attempting to interperet them. Voight speaks of the War on Terror and the war in Iraq, as though they were winable, as if it were a win/lose situation. IMO, this is an erroneous assumption originating is egoism and fear, the flames of which have been fed by the current administration and the media in a self-serving fashion which reminds me of the same religious and ideological fanaticism portrayed so brilliantly in September Dawn. A fact, to me, difficult to ignore, although percieved by Jon Voight and the 25% who buy into the neoconservative party line. Although Voight may come by his convictions honestly and with a heartfelt sincerity, I would propose that Voight belongs to one of the most heavily progandized generations in history. He seems to view any challenge to the current authoritarian leadership as politically motivated, insincere, anti-American and unpatriotic. Although this may be true from certain establishment memes and mindsets, and Ken Wilber says that "everyone is right," I would suggest that Voight read slowly, carefully and with all of the rationality which he can muster, the online edition of 1984 by George Orwell, since, as many are pointing out, seems to be the model for 21st century American politics. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH I would suggest that reason and rationality and logic can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that fear has been used with great success to control the U.S. population. Voight has a greater chance of being struck by lightening than of being harmed by a terrorist, yet has a near 100% chance of losing almost every freedom that he has, including his right to a personal conscious conscience by the provisions of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. I would propose that such blind faith in authority, given an historical persective, is irrational and illogical. "The attacks on George Bush I find to be reprehensible." Neoconservative sensibilities seem to react to any criticism of the "leader" as an attack on their own self esteem, motherhood and apple pie. It reminds me of the general in Dr. Strangelove who believed that flouridated water was a communist plot designed to "sap our precious bodily fluids." "The War on Terror is real." Although Voight may have made it "real" in his mind, the concept of a war on an abstract noun is difficult to comprehend. A "War of Terror" to secure the maximum possible benefit and political advantages for profiteers has been suggested. (See War is a Racket, a rational analysis of profiteering during the First World War by Major General Smedley Butler, or It Can't Happen Here, a pre-WW2 tract on fascist tendencies among the U.S. political elite, or consider Hughey Long's statement that fascism would come to the U.S. wrapped in the Flag and under the name of anti-fascism) This is all to me very rational and logical and it seems to be lost on Voight and about 25% of the U.S. population, who seems to have this mindset of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" and "we must destroy the U.S. and Iraq in the name of saving them," which seem to me queer notions of patriotism from a rational perspective. "The question is, 'who are you and where are your sensibilities?'" Voight then suggests that anyone with a different view is coming from a left wing agenda, and is someone which he does not wish to talk to. This, in my personal experience, can be socially isolating and leads to a vicious cylcle of denial. I get this all of the time, Pat Buchanan is left wing. People like to say that. This again, seems like a very narrow interperetation of the political spectrum, and quite irrational, however common a sentiment it may be among neoconservatives. "This growing cancer of fanaticism, it's like 1938- it's very, very similar." For once I agree with Voight, but for very different reasons. I have been reading Justin Raimondo's critical columns since last October, and would recommend them to others. He goes on at great length and depth about how for the neoconservatived it is always 1938. It is 2008 and there is no monolithic block of "Islamofascism," although our actions may cause what we had hoped to avoid and unite people against us in something of this manner. War is not the way to peace. Peace is the way... Fighting fire with fire and violence with yet more violence is illogical in most cases. From reason, can anyone give me an example of it working on a large scale? "I have stated that the movie is a true documented event of a group of fanatic believers who recieved one man's evil permission to massacre another religion- that's the way I summed it up for myself." Voight seems to me to miss the applicability of this film to our current situation. I would refer him to Paul Levy's POV on what has been referred to as "Malignant Egophrenia" working its way through our collective mind. AGAIN, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, SO THAT THERE MAY BE NO MISTAKE WHATSEVER, I AM NOT DISSING PHIL OR JOHN VOIGHT OR ANYONE PERSONALLY!!! PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THAT PROJECTION. THIS IS NOT MY MOTIVE!!! "The Mormon Church is denying complicity in any way." 1857 or 2007? I would suggest that before the next attack upon our country, we might consider how we might respond more appropriately. We might consider the advantages of a rifle over a shotgun approach. We might just want to sit nakedly and humbly before a fact, with all the rationality and courage we can muster, especially when we are inclined to ride off rather narcissisticaly in all directions at once, united pathologically in our collective pathology. This may be difficult, but I feel strongly that The King's Kids should be way out front at this. If I am missing anything here, then I would appreciate it greatly if Phil or johnboy or anyone else, using SEP or any other method where I may have gone wrong, or made a factual, logical or rational error. I would be greatly appreciative. With great love and affection, Yours truly, spoonboy | ||||
|
To Everyone, General Eisenhower, no "chickenhawk" by any stretch, after becoming President of the United States, said that anyone coming to him with the idea of pre-emptive war would not be taken seriously. . . ------- Post deleted . . . points are irrelevant to this discussion. | ||||
|
Content deleted. Long list of quotes by various people is irrelevant to this discussion. | ||||
|
Johnboy, I've taken a week or so to think about your question, and here is how I am thinking of "what happened" to change our marking of time. The earliest believers affirmed, as do I, "God raised Jesus from the dead." That was the beginning of a new age in history. Some, though arguably not Paul, also surmised that in raising Jesus from the dead, God literally incorporated the physical matter of Jesus' corpse into his transformed resurrection body. This is the view Arraj and Phil argue for. I beg to differ. As I see it, what happened to Jesus' physical body after his death -- whether it was stolen and cremated or whatever might have happened -- is irrelevant to God's creation of his new glorified body. Conviction that the corpse of Jesus was literally transformed into his resurrection body was part of the spread of the faith, I admit, and it is amazing to me how many people still insist on emphasizing that interpretation of the event. Perhaps even you. Undoubtedly, such thinking has an allure. Of course, these questions have been debated before by scholars more able than us. What brings us together here, (Phil, you and me to list some of "us") is not only the experience of the risen Christ in our lives, but also the question of how to integrate so called "kundalini" experiences into our understanding of our faith tradition. For myself, and I think for Phil also, our views on the nature of the resurrection were formed mainly before our Kundalini experiences. Which raises the question, still to be explored, of how such experiences change our views about the meaning(s) of bodily resurrection. Johnboy, I have read a little about your experience with Kundalini. Have you written on the topic at length? I would like to know more about how you relate that experience to your understanding of your faith tradition and how it might have changed your views specifically on the meaning of resurrection, if at all. | ||||
|
from spoonboy: I do not wish to "diss" Jon Voight, a great contemporary actor and artist who seems to be operating at a thoughtful and rational level, with love of country and integrity, albeit given a certain mindset and a certain set of "facts," many of which are intellectual abstractions provided by the opinion shapers of our time, as Brigham Young no doubt was circa 1857. I do with to call into question those facts, and the mindset that is attempting to interperet them. No. That's not the discussion, here. I've let that post stand, but have deleted others. You're using every discussion to go off on the same topics, which we've taken up in full on a number of Religion and Culture threads. The proliferation of this "crusade" of yours is spamming the board. There are lots of sites dedicated to informing the world of the "great evils" of Mr. Bush and U.S. government policies, the dangers of media control by corporations, etc. You've had your say here on those matters. Take it elsewhere now, please. | ||||
|
I have not written on the topic at length. I remain open-minded regarding so-called energy experiences re: prana & chi & reiki and kundalini & shakti. I know THAT I experienced something even if I do not know WHAT I experienced or HOW it reconciles with current biomedical research. My energy experiences were mostly orderly and deeply consoling, even if more than a tad disorienting. I take Eastern descriptions of same seriously but not literally. I believe that such interpretive frameworks (e.g. yoga) can function like "true myths," which is to say that, even if not literally true, they can nevertheless evoke appropriate human responses to ultimate reality. As more and more Christians get exposed to eastern spiritual "technology," very likely a new set of interpretive categories will develop and will be more amenable to classical Western philosophy and science and psychology and spirituality (and theology). To some extent, much of the technology seems to "work" independently of the culural milieu within which it originated, which is to say that no one needs to buy into Eastern creeds, dogma or ontology to benefit from ascetical in/efficacies. If there are aspects of these frameworks that are literally true, then, to some extent, they will end up being beyond the grasp of our methological naturalism. I do not see a need to rush to closure ontologically by a priori declaring such energy either physical or metaphysical. Maybe it is like psychic energy & libido? Maybe it is electromagnetic? I recommend the National Institutes of Health and their ongoing research as a credible authority. How do created energy and Uncreated Reality interact? Well, we do know that semiotic reality can be efficacious via nonenergetic causation. What about Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts? Can we speak of Uncreated Energy, theologically? Does it then have traction literally, or only analogically? This much is clear to me, re: chi and kundalini, whatever they are, they are part of the created order and, as such, are like any other created gift which can be directed toward God's service, ordinately, or misdirected inordinately. When associated with consolations, I found the best path is that recommended by St. John of the Cross re: extraordinary experiences: forget about them and look only to God. If desolation or disturbance is encountered, then Ignatian discernment is called for, followed by ameliorative or corrective action. [If disturbances are profound and physically and mentally debilitating, then I'm sure you'll find many resources here at Shalomplace to direct you to the help you need, spiritually, psychologically, medically, etc] Ascetical practices and spiritual disciplines and "technology" are gifts, like the rest of the created order, ordered toward theosis. However, there are too many ways for their epiphenomenal aspects to become disordered appetites and inordinate attachments. And there are many psychological dangers that lay in wait for those who do not properly integrate their ascetical practices within an authentic worship tradition (and even for those who do; e.g. unloading of the unconscious). I have not related any of this to my interpretation of the resurrection, spiritually. I do not see any reason to a priori rule out (or in) any particular physical or metaphysical interpretation of the resurrection. I think there is much a posteriori reason to take the apostles and disciples, who were there, at their word. I never related any of this to the resurrection, although I guess one could come up with all types of interesting hypotheses. Just doesn't grab my interest at this point in my life, I suppose. | ||||
|
People can argue rationally with logical consistency, internal coherence and factual fidelity from radically different interpretive stances (or tautologies). This happens all the time, for example, with conspiracy theorists (and paranoids), who question received opinion and forensic science. There is no dispossessing them of their notions because their tautologies are, as I like to say, rather taut. So, one needs more than facts and logic is the SEP thrust. And one needs more than moral reasoning, too. There are certainly enough disagreements re: various moral realities in politics. There are also many, many political issues where values are, in fact, shared by folks who otherwise disagree only from a practical perspective. It seems rather disingenuous, in those cases, to either demonize or deify our leaders because of differences of opinion regarding practical determinations, which can be extremely problematical. It also seems rather superficial to facilely apply pop-psychological and pop-sociological analyses to our very complex socioeconomic-politico-cultural systems as they interact globally with the very intractable and very real dangers facing humankind. We can thus --- as Merton calls it -- engage in moral fantasy in a vaccuum. I'm not in a position to say what you are missing inasmuch as I have not considered enough of your thought. I did want to add more criteria to your factual, logical or rational. Search "subsidiarity principle" at Shalomplace and you should find some other thoughts of mine, which reveal my classical liberal (nuanced libertarian, almost paleoconservative) stance, which is more like the Republicans of the Western states and less like the Southern social conservatives/evangelicals and even much less like the neoconservative approach. But maybe this belongs to another forum? | ||||
|
And what does "SEP" stand for? I Googled it and found "Somebody Else's Problem." "An S.E.P. ," he said, "is something that we can't see, or don't see, our brain doesn't let us see, because we think it's somebody else's problem. That's what S.E.P. means. Somebody Else's Problem. The brain just edits it out; it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye." (Douglas Adams, Life, Universe and Everything) | ||||
|
Let me point out that the discussion of biosemiotics and emergence only sets forth some guidelines for how we might best relate the different foci of human concern. One way of thinking about it is that Helminiak related the positivistic, philosophic, theistic and theotic foci of concern using Lonergan's transcendental thomism. And Phil introduced that here a few years ago. Then, in my own studies of Charles Sanders Peirce, I learned the ways he related pretty much the same categories from within his semiotic and pragmatist perspective. And then I mapped the two systems together and saw how they tended to validate each other. These systems are dealing with BROAD categories and, within these broad categories, is WIDE latitude for differences in perspectives, philosophically and metaphysically, and for differences in spiritualities, and for differences in theistic outlooks, EXCEPT that there is a departure point from other worldviews and traditions vis a vis the distinctly Christian orientation toward THEOSIS. Then, again, Lonergan's categories are rather BROAD and there is WIDE latitude for how we might go about effecting these conversions. The same thing is playing out in the principles we might adhere to politically. I mentioned in another thread, years ago: 1) subsidiarity principles 2) solidarity principles 3) natural law principles and 4) the personalist maxim. And I pointed out in this thread: The beauty of our constitutional republican democracy is that, at least, we have a consensus on what the self-evident principles are even if we disagree on their interpretation and application. Thus, we can engage in deliberative process, nurturing the creative tension that balances the competing values embodied in the self-evident principles that we have all bought into. Whether democrat, republican, paleo or neo, liberal or conservative, it is in our mutual acceptance of these self-evident principles that we accept one another, the real enemies, the demonizable entities, being not one another but rather those who, in both theory and practice, reject these principles, these essentials, these nonnegotiables. Th reason I am writing this is to emphasize that I have only been looking at categories and rubrics for inter-relating them, and at principles and how we might bring them to bear. These categories and rubrics and principles are very powerful heuristics (devices for clear thinking and realizing values). They DO NOT drive anyone, algorithmically, to one scientific or metaphysical hypothesis or another, to one conclusion regarding this or that moral reality, to any particular political viewpoint other than what I think is an obvious bias toward tradition, where on matters of theoretical reason we think boldly and on matters of practical reason we move tentatively. Succinctly, then, this is not a thread where one can come and have all of their past disputations at Shalomplace adjudicated. | ||||
|
Thanks Johnboy, Your self-aware application of thoughtful clarifying, nuanced language to this discussion is a step beyond what I would have been capable of, and yet it is familiar enough for me that I'm able to follow along and thus learn something. Thanks again. | ||||
|
Seriously, what does the acronym SEP stand for? | ||||
|
Spoonboy latched on to that acronym, which I had employed in an essay called "Is Metaphysics Moonshine?" near the bottom of this webpage. It stands for semiotic emergence paradigm. Thanks, Ryan, for your feedback and kind remarks, too. One other distinction we might keep in mind re: our belief systems is that of essential or core beliefs versus that of accidental or peripheral beliefs, the first being rather indispensable and non-negotiable, the latter category allowing much latitude in approach. When I say indispensable, I do not only mean that we might be considered heterodox or heretics by this teaching authority or that, I also mean to suggest that we may even begin to lapse into inconsistency and incoherence, or may become just plain silly, as our definitions and core commitments drift beyond what could meaningfully be considered orthodox vis a vis this tradition or another, or coherent, period. You might find that an interesting angle to spur discussion on your resurrection thread? pax, all | ||||
|
For a review of the meaning of theosis, I read this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis It seems to me that moving toward some sort of theosis is central to what brings us together here at shalom place. What do you think of the wiki article? Does it seem like an accurate summary of the various main schools of thought? Are you saying Lonergan and Peirce (I have not studied either of them) have different understandings of theosis in the grand scheem? What is that difference, as it might relate to, or clarify our discussion here? I know I've asked a lot of questions, so let me just back up a bit and say, please reply if you are willing and able, if you have the time and energy. | ||||
|
I defer to Phil on the theological account. I'll discuss the philosophical angle. Peirce isn't doing theology at all. He's doing philosophy. His approach should, however, inform that part of Lonergan's overall perspective that does deal with philosophical issues. The way Peirce would critique Lonergan is that Lonergan and Rahner used a transcendental thomism which is rather a prioristic and maybe a little too rationalistic, which results in a theological anthropology that is a tad too optimistic. (And I am trying to layer my explanation for those who may read this years from now, which is to say that I will try to give both the jargonistic, technical answer and a more accessible answer, too). Going beyond all this jargon, then, and hopefully being faithful to his approach, Donald Gelpi would say that, reading the transcendental thomists (influenced by Kant's approach), one might get the mistaken notion that most of humankind is spontaneously longing for the beatific vision and that is manifestly not so, n'est pas? So, the Peircean corrective would be to take a more a posteriori and fallibilist approach and to use a theological anthropology that, in my words, is Goldilocks-ish, neither too optimistic nor pessimistic but realistic. This also gifts us with an empirical perspective to help balance our rationalist musings, which is to say that orthopraxis is what authenticates orthodoxy. What does that mean? In concrete terms, if we get our essentials and accidentals right, and if we apply our categories and rubrics right, then Lonergan's conversions --- intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical (Gelpi added this one) and religious --- will be successfully institutionalized. This may be, then, somewhat of a grasp of the obvious? For, if we are to be about the business of soulmaking , then human growth will be in evidence and will testify to what we are getting right vis a vis our theological anthropology, vis a vis our sacramental economy, vis a vis the authenticity of our teachings, vis a vis our leading people, more quickly and with less hindrance, to authenticity, themselves. If we are doing theosis right, then we'll see a lot more authentic, converted, mature Christians in our congregations. And they will be practicing right (ortho-praxis, true practice). And this should validate, then, right beliefs (ortho-doxy, true glory). Thus, the glory of God is a human being, fully alive. Well, on review, this may still be too jargonized. But one should be able to grasp the overall thrust in context? Maybe it would be a good exercise for you to restate what you think I said? And I'll think about it and try to do it also. | ||||
|
From JB: Succinctly, then, this is not a thread where one can come and have all of their past disputations at Shalomplace adjudicated. LOL! Good one. It is fitting, however, that specific examples been given to either test or showcase what the four levels can and cannot affirm. I took Ryan's inquiry about the resurrection to be offered in that spirit. Perhaps the best we can say is that a truth affirmed in a "lower level" cannot be discounted in a higher -- that the lower constrain what the higher can and cannot affirm. E.g., the age of the Earth, which science has established to be billions of years old, or the Earth as a planet in a solar system that is part of a galaxy. There still are theological paradigms that dispute this. Re. the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a way of inquiring would be to ask what is possible to affirm and not at level one -- positivism/empiricism (what can be affirmed as factual information). There are numerous questions that come to the fore at this level: a. What did the Apostles actually attest to? b. Was the tomb empty? c. How could it be that the matter of Jesus' body is re-animated? It seems that most exegetes have decided that a and b point to an affirmation of bodily resurrection, so the rub is c, which is not any more difficult for us than for first generation Christians. So one must ask whether science has completely closed the door on c, and my points above were that I don't think that to be the case. I won't repeat those reflections here, as I spent quite a bit of time articulating them above and on another thread where we discuss this. For purposes of this discussion, then, I don't think we can say that level one posits an absolute constraint against bodily resurrection. That's very important, for it honors the mystery we are dealing with while allowing the theological affirmations of the Church to proceed without insisting on a kind of irrational, blind faith. | ||||
|
Positively, me too. As for spoonboy ...I'll take it in that spirit, too.  Yes. Nothing esoteric here. It is only to recognize that different types of questions yield different types of answers. We simply want to avoid what philosophers would call a category error. For example, we do not want to ask: "Is that sound we hear red?" Here's another distinction. Science speaks to the categories of the the actual and the probable and, by extension, the plausible. I like to call these categories modal phenomenology. These categories deal with a posteriori and synthetic observations. Now, to completely close the door on any reality is to add another category, which, in common parlance, we call the necessary. Science doesn't "do" necessary. There is another word for that, which is scientism. And that's why we need faith, in more ways than just religiously. The empirical/positivist stance does not traffic in such concepts as possible and impossible, certain and uncertain, necessary and unnecessary. I like to call these categories modal ontology , which entails the metaphysical, or interpretive, or paradigmatic, or Helminiak's theistic focus. Quite often, philosophers and metaphysicians have treated these categories as a priori and rationally known, but, even in metaphysics, nowadays, we know better and speak in terms of fallible hypotheses. None of this is to deny that, for example, if one hears an argument from a good metaphysician, let's say, e.g. Arraj, then one might very well be able to claim to have a confident assurance in things hoped for, a conviction re: things unseen, a practical certainty. One can say that, philosophically and metaphysically, humans can reason their way to a valid hypothesis and then consider it sound, for all practical purposes, vis a vis a working knowledge and experience of God. Most folks are unconsciously competent in this regard, re: the Reality of God as a metaphysical argument and do NOT need a philosophical preamble or metaphysical argument; their faith is warranted and justified via a constellation of other epistemic virtues (like common sense, for example! and faith, hope and love!) that form a web of coherence, or, if one prefers, foundations. So, what does one do with How could it be that the matter of Jesus' body is re-animated? Positivistically, we would say that that is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE! Metaphysically, we would say: "My hypothesis, based on this particular root metaphor for reality, is that ..." Theologically, we would say: "Alleluia! He is risen!" And, at the philosophic or spiritual or evaluative level, we might say: " Only this I want , but to know the Lord and to bear His cross so to wear the crown He wore. To know Him and His sufferings so as to know the power of His Resurrection!" And, theotically, and normatively, we would aspire to realize life's values in terms of being the type of human Jesus was -- FULLY ALIVE! | ||||
|
For future readers, here is a record of some of my Googling that helped trail-blaze Johnboy's jargon. I thought he might have been making up the word "fallibalist" but no, it turns out to be an important concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism For a review of a priori and a posteriori the wikipedia was helpful again. For "n'est pas?" it was helpful to learn a little French grammar: N'est-ce pas? is added to the end of a yes/no question when the speaker expects an affirmative response. Trey: Tu connais 'La guerre des �toiles,' n'est-ce pas? Trey: You know 'Star Wars,' don't you? And I found another usage of Goldilocks-ish: "New goldilocks model: Too sunny - They get ridiculed Too gloomy - The credit markets get creamed and a lot of anger directed their way I'm expecting something goldilocks-ish, just right, until the next leg down..." | ||||
|
I'm working on it. After getting clear on all your terms, I do think I understand what you are saying. But putting it into my own words is another matter. i think it may be worthwhile. But it may take a while. | ||||
|
From JB: The empirical/positivist stance does not traffic in such concepts as possible and impossible, certain and uncertain, necessary and unnecessary. I don't know about "necessary and unnecessary," but it seems to me that a great many scientific hypotheses do indeed investigate possibilities and even reach conclusions on the order of "certainties." The very structure of an hypothesis is to yield "yes, no, or maybe so" to a question, or to examine the consequences of some kind of intervention. (E.g., what will happen to these plants if we eliminate all sources of light for 10 days?) Maybe I'm using "possibilities" differently from what you meant, but still, I cannot imagine the term being inappropriate for what science investigates. | ||||
|
Phil, you are absolutely correct. Possibilities belong to both modal categories. And that "/" was a typo. I prefer to maintain the distinction between high probabilities and certainty, although uncertainty needs to be relocated and probabilities can reach asymptotal-like limits. The deal is that not even the principle of verification is verifiable and not even falsifiability is falsifiable, so we cannot claim indubitable starting points for science. At any rate, this doesn't affect my application of same to the resurrection issue. In the Peircean grammar, modal categories are rigorously defined with their own distinct grammars. These grammars differ in the manner in which they employ (or not) the first principles of noncontradiction and excluded middle. For possibilities, noncontradiction folds and excluded middle holds. For actualities, both hold. For probabilities, noncontradiction holds and excluded middle folds. This is the rough equivalent of what we might call fuzzy logic. Below is an excerpt from my essay explicating what I wrote above:
| ||||
|
To keep the contiuity of the thread, rather than edit the original post, here is the revised post. Thanks, Phil. Glad to know you are reading what I write. Watch out for any other faux pas, which could be intentional, you never know.
| ||||
|
BTW, Peirce's term for hypothesizing is abduction. It is integral to everything science is about vis a vis possibilities. It is distinguished from induction and deduction as a type of inference. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology From Physics & Biology to Religion & Theology