Spirituality
02 Dec 07
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by amannionOnce I heard Bishop Spong's take on the inadequacy of language to describe God, I patiently waited for him to refute himself by ascribing some attributes to God. I wasn't disappointed. In his closing statements, just a few moments after saying "I cannot tell you who God is or what God is," the bishop proceeded to affirm that God is the source of love and the ground of all being.
Here's a take on the debate Spong had with William Craig about the 'reality' of the resurrection:
According to Spong, who described himself as not being a "biblical literalist," it's not possible to be a Christian and deny the "reality of the resurrection." But, says Spong, this reality should not be understood as a physical return from death. What appea ...[text shortened]... p proceeded to affirm that God is the source of love and the ground of all being.
Why do you think that’s particularly self-refuting, or problematically so, at any rate? I mean, the alternative is to say nothing—technically, if you want to be that severe, he was self-refuting as soon as he said the word “ineffable.”
Scottishinnz once described the cosmos (wonderfully, I thought) as the “totality that has no edge.” I have argued that the whole has no proper analogy, since there is nothing else to compare it to. The concept of the whole seems to be, at best, barely effable. Our consciousness works from a figure-ground perspective. Can you image the whole that has no boundary because it is not a figure for a larger ground? How do you think of it in your mind? What language can you use to speak of it—the whole that also includes you yourself?
Suppose I say it is the ground of all being beyond which there is no further ground? How effable is that?
Theistic language is almost always highly anthropomorphic, but the particular anthropomorphisms (e.g., God’s face or hands) are then denied. As long as it is acknowledged that this stems from the effability problem—and there is no claim that God is really effable, only we don’t have adequate language for it... Or that the conceptual metaphors are actual descriptors...
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day...?”
____________________________________
I usually try to say this carefully, even if it sounds a bit convoluted:
I see no reason to assume that we are the singular species for whom no aspect of existence transcends our cognitive capabilities. More mundanely, I don’t assume that the grammar of our particular consciousness is exhaustive of the syntax of the whole cosmos.
However, our consciousness does seem to be able to have a sense of the mystery, and of there being mystery. What is wholly mysterious is ineffable. What we can say is what that sense seems like. Coherent, for example (well, that makes sense).
When one is simply aware, without making any conceptual content in the mind (I am not excluding perceptual content, here), including all the self-identifying “I-concepts”—well, you can quickly see how effability is a problem: if there is in the moment no separate identification of “I” and “other”, but just . . .
If I say it’s effable, then you might take my words as (being intended as) accurate conceptual maps of a conceptual territory. For such things, language—whether metaphorical/poetic, or paradoxical—can be elicitive, but not properly descriptive. Words are then concepts used to point to the non-conceptual; as the Buddhists say, fingers pointing to the moon. That’s all.
Self-refuting? I suppose so. I just don’t see it as something worth any particular criticism.
03 Dec 07
This miracle-talk reminds me of a story. I don’t recall it all, so I’ll cut it short (and make some of it up):
A man told his guru that he was frustrated because he hadn’t yet attained enlightenment, and he intended to go live as a hermit in the mountains and meditate day and night until he was enlightened. The guru probably said something like: “Have fun.”
Ten years later the man returned to his guru, having attained enlightenment, along with miraculous powers (siddhis). The guru probably said something like: “Hope you had fun.”
Well, the guru had to go to town to get some groceries, and his former student said he’d walk along with him. They came to the river, where the ferry-boat carried people across to the town. The guru asked the boatman what the fare was. “Five glupiks.” So the guru paid and got on. The student however, ignored the ferry-boat and simply walked across on the water. He waited for his guru on the other side.
When the guru disembarked, the man exclaimed: “Why did you pay to ride the ferry? I know perfectly well that you are capable of walking across the water.”
The guru replied: “Ten years you spent in the mountains to save five glupiks? And to deny that poor boatman his pay? Just to show off?”
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettIf he thinks Jesus is wrong why doesn't he just say so and be honest about it and become an Atheist? It would be more congruent.
John Shelby Spong was the Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, from 1979 to 2000. He's what you would call (to put it mildly) a liberal theologian. He's a prolific author whose titles include:
[i]Jesus for the Non-Religious
A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born
Why Christianity Must Change or ...[text shortened]... the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
Anyone have an opinion on Mr. Spong?
It's like he's saying " I want to hold on to my faith somehow , the problem is I don't believe about 90% of it"
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdI'm not sure what you're asking me.
[b]Once I heard Bishop Spong's take on the inadequacy of language to describe God, I patiently waited for him to refute himself by ascribing some attributes to God. I wasn't disappointed. In his closing statements, just a few moments after saying "I cannot tell you who God is or what God is," the bishop proceeded to affirm that God is the source of love and ...[text shortened]... -refuting? I suppose so. I just don’t see it as something worth any particular criticism.
I posted this because I support the notion that Spong's viewpoint can still be valid as a christian.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSurely he would loose his job and title if he did that?
If he thinks Jesus is wrong why doesn't he just say so and be honest about it and become an Atheist? It would be more congruent.
It's like he's saying " I want to hold on to my faith somehow , the problem is I don't believe about 90% of it"
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere are many people who believe that modern Christianity has virtually nothing in common with what Jesus actually said. Spong isn't saying that Jesus is wrong, he's saying that our understanding of Jesus is wrong. There's a growing body of evidence to support this view that is becoming increasingly more difficult to overlook. The fundamentalists' inability to reconcile themselves with evolution has alienated them from modern society, and if they're determined to remain stuck in the Dark Ages on every point, then that's where they shall be left.
If he thinks Jesus is wrong why doesn't he just say so and be honest about it and become an Atheist? It would be more congruent.
It's like he's saying " I want to hold on to my faith somehow , the problem is I don't believe about 90% of it"
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said as much: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""
There are many people who believe that modern Christianity has virtually nothing in common with what Jesus actually said. Spong isn't saying that Jesus is wrong, he's saying that our understanding of Jesus is wrong. There's a growing body of evidence to support this view that is becoming increasingly more difficult to overlook. The fundamentalists' inabilit ned to remain stuck in the Dark Ages on every point, then that's where they shall be left.
~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 125
Proponents of evolution generally downplay the weak underbelly of Darwin's theory. Some organs require a minimum number of parts to work -- if there is just one less part, nothing good happens. This is indeed a problem for evolution. It's hard to imagine mutations suddenly creating several new structures and fitting them together in a complex system. What good is an eye without an optic nerve? Or an optic nerve that connects only halfway? Dawkins himself admits that if such irreducible complexity can be properly demonstrated that the theory of evolution would be bunk... Yet, why the unscientific bias against such an idea? It's a perfectly tenable position which Darwin himself anticipated.
The point is, evolutionary theory by itself isn't sufficient to justify alienating anybody. And certainly not sufficient reason to divest the Bible of its supernatural elements, as you suggest.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasUh oh. This is a bad move on your part. Bringing evolutionary theory into this is never going to end happily ...
"The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said as much: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.""
...[text shortened]... not sufficient reason to divest the Bible of its supernatural elements, as you suggest.
Darwin, and Dawkins, were simply pointing out the notion of falsifiability. That is, a valid scientific model can be proven false. So, yes, evolution can be proven false. All you need is to find an example counter to the theory.
Your point of the eye is a poor one and has been refuted, including by Darwin himself.
But you must realise this. So what exactly is your point?
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by amannionThe point is, evolutionary theory by itself isn't sufficient to justify alienating anybody. And certainly not sufficient reason to divest the Bible of its supernatural elements.
Uh oh. This is a bad move on your part. Bringing evolutionary theory into this is never going to end happily ...
Darwin, and Dawkins, were simply pointing out the notion of falsifiability. That is, a valid scientific model can be proven false. So, yes, evolution can be proven false. All you need is to find an example counter to the theory.
Your point of ...[text shortened]... refuted, including by Darwin himself.
But you must realise this. So what exactly is your point?
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, I think you're right there.
The point is, evolutionary theory by itself isn't sufficient to justify alienating anybody. And certainly not sufficient reason to divest the Bible of its supernatural elements.
To be honest, I don't think there's any valid scientific or rational approach to either believe in the supernatural or not believe.
I think that position - whichever you choose - must come down to some sort of personal judgement call.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by amannion'I don't think there's any valid scientific or rational approach to either believe in the supernatural or not believe.'
No, I think you're right there.
To be honest, I don't think there's any valid scientific or rational approach to either believe in the supernatural or not believe.
I think that position - whichever you choose - must come down to some sort of personal judgement call.
Are you sure? I take it you do not suscribe to the view that science is a study of the natural world then?
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandNo no, you misunderstand me.
'I don't think there's any valid scientific or rational approach to either believe in the supernatural or not believe.'
Are you sure? I take it you do not suscribe to the view that science is a study of the natural world then?
Yes, of course science is the study of the natural world and as such does not consider the supernatural.
What I mean is, because of this - science not recognising the supernatural - it fails to be able to give us any insight into this one way or another.
Maybe that's not that clear either. I guess what I'm trying to suggest is based on many years of posting in these threads and arguing with theists and atheists alike about these situations. And no matter what scientific, rational arguments you use theists will implicitly accept supernatural explanations.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, you either believe of you don't. Scientific positions aren't going to be changing many people's minds on that.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by amannionI don't understand what you are trying to say.
No no, you misunderstand me.
Yes, of course science is the study of the natural world and as such does not consider the supernatural.
What I mean is, because of this - science not recognising the supernatural - it fails to be able to give us any insight into this one way or another.
Maybe that's not that clear either. I guess what I'm trying to sugge ...[text shortened]... f you don't. Scientific positions aren't going to be changing many people's minds on that.
By definition, science cannot explain that which is not 'natural'. But then again no-one can, because it is beyond ourselves, the natural.
I have posted several times on this forum where people have faith that something or other is the case; by definition that is not rational; eg the man who married a dog because he believed that would alleviate his plight, or the mother who took large risks (partly) because she believed that blood transfusions were forbidden by a supernatural instruction. These things will not be proved one way or the other, it is a matter for belief.
What can be shown is that the risk of death in the mother's case is some 100 times higher that otherwise. That is science. The man will not be able to reproduce with the dog, hence his genes will die out. That is science. These two beliefs reduce the surviveability of the genes that held them. That is science.
There are a large number of people who make a living from the supernatural. So it is always in their interests to maintain the 'magic' or 'mystery' of what cannot, after all, be 'proved'. These things that can be 'proved' will move from the supernatural into the natural. There are large sums of money out there for those who can if they like, demonstrate that they can show the supernatural to us. All have failed to take the challenge.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOkay, let me try again.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
By definition, science cannot explain that which is not 'natural'. But then again no-one can, because it is beyond ourselves, the natural.
I have posted several times on this forum where people have faith that something or other is the case; by definition that is not rational; eg the man who married ...[text shortened]... te that they can show the supernatural to us. All have failed to take the challenge.
Science cannot as you say define or explain the supernatural.
So, science can't add anything to a discussion of the statement - 'god exists' - since god is a supernatural concept and is beyond science. (Science of course might make a pretty good fist of explaining away the need for a god, but can't touch the notion of god itself.)
I can say 'god exists' and you can't use science to refute this.
I can say 'god doesn't exist' and likewise, you can't use science to refute this.
So, we're at an impasse as far as use of science to confront the supernatural. Science has no use in this case.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYou are looking for a certitude which is not there.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
By definition, science cannot explain that which is not 'natural'. But then again no-one can, because it is beyond ourselves, the natural.
I have posted several times on this forum where people have faith that something or other is the case; by definition that is not rational; eg the man who married ...[text shortened]... te that they can show the supernatural to us. All have failed to take the challenge.
"He whose Faith never doubted, may justly doubt of his Faith." ~ Robert Boyle
Such a statement could very well apply to your faith in methodological naturalism.