Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Sayeth RightWhale.
So I guess Mozart and Sagan are personally dispensable. Their only meaning and value consists in their function as dumb and blind vessels of divine will.
Is that what you're getting at, RightWhale?
edsheppa got it right, i.e. I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Modern science has limited its inquiry by methodological naturalism. By definition, it doesn't look for - or (allegedly) form conclusions about - anything that is not knowable and predictable and thus can be explained as caused by something which is natural, material or physical.
Science excludes miracles by definition, i.e. every phenomenon must have a physical cause to fall within the reach of science. That does not mean ipso facto that everything has a physical cause though certainly some scientists think so (Dawkins, Lewontin, Singer, Pinker, et al.)
Divine revelations are beyond the boundaries of science. They are miracles per se. For those of us who have experienced a divine revelation, it is the most certain knowledge of all.
God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. Science can't "lay a glove" on Him.
I am amused by metaphysical naturalism. How arrogant of man to presume that if he cannot perceive it with his senses or mind, or put it to a test, it doesn't exist. [visions here of deep sea creatures having the same attitude, being astonished later on to discover there is life beyond the water...]
I catch a whiff of nihilism in RightWhale's remarks.... I can't imagine what revelation he is plugged into.
As you say, we have an "observer problem" here -- with RightWhale, you, and me, three different observers. Funny thing is, you and I see the same world virtually always. But I don't see RightWhale's world at all.
I wish he could explain it to me.
I bet miracles work by the same method, if we could but see it. And I think revelations and the fulfillments of visions/dreams are made of the same stuff - numbers in right sequence all down the line (: It hasn't been given to us to see or measure these, which is why it's called faith, for sure, but to my thinking it is not less "reasonable" than the math that is "measurable".
Truly, all Christians have experienced at least one divine revelation, i.e. when it dawned in us that Jesus Christ is Lord. (I Cor 12:3) After that one, we just can't seem to get enough. LOL!
And I would agree that, at the root, there is a mathematical structure related to every phenomenon. That is, btw, the basis of Max Tegmark's Level IV Universe model.
No intrusion, MHGinTN -- you are most welcome!
Your objection has legs. I was painting with too broad a brush, toward the end of falsifying the notion that human nature is not essentially distinguishable from animal nature, and certainly not different than that of our putative immediate ancestors, the great apes.
Of course there is spiritual evolution! I just take that for granted. I have direct evidence of it in my own life; plus as a student of culture, I know that man from the dawn of human history has been trying to understand the Cosmos and his place in it. In the process, certain great spiritual themes or truths have emerged that are astonishingly durable over time. They are so essentially basic, that each age reimagines them in its own way, building on the past with a view toward the future.
God is the ultimate symbol. Christianity is its greatest articulation. I am speaking abstractly here, although God is not an abstraction for me!
There is our risen Lord Jesus Christ, and His Holy Spirit. If human nature "evolves," it is by His ministrations, His workings in us, His drawing of us to Himself....
Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post, MHGinTN!
Duly noted, dearest co-author!
That is the hope of each of us, dear sister in Christ, God willing! :^) Thank you so much for your kindly words and support!
Thank God that will continue no matter what the leftists (or any thing or one) may accomplish. LOL!
And thank God, the Alpha and Omega, the First Cause and the Final Cause - for the purpose of all it, the new heaven and earth, His family - for that is when the spiritual evolution will be complete.
I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Why stop with divine revelation? When you reject science and the scientific method there are so many other sources of "knowledge" to choose from: magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, aching bunions, Ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, hoodoo, voodoo, and all sorts of other weird stuff.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
Probably turn out that ‘you’ are the revelation, nothing but revelation.
There are no good translations of the Bible in English.
They have no inherent meaning nor value. Those are things we do, name things and assign value for our moral judgements.
Whatever whiff you catch is up to your sensory network. Whatever meaning you name is what you do. Funny thing, the Sultan of Istambul said once that most all lives are the same; maybe he was saying the same thing you said, but he also was making a pattern since there are no patterns in nature and the Sultan must decide many things every day. Some equate pattern and process. I see relation rather than pattern, many kinds; there are many but none in nature.
Amen, my dearest sister in Christ! All thanks, praise, and glory be His, now and forever! Amen.
But what is the basis of our "moral judgments?" Why do we feel impelled to "name things" and "assign value?" Why/how are such things relevant in your universe? Especially when you've already suggested that man is an entirely passive vehicle for divine will. So man doesn't have to make these distinctions at all. All he has to do is submit to being a passive tool. What moral judgment does a tool need?
IMO there is no knowably certain knowledge (yes, I do recognize the amusing self application). But history shows we can aspire to increasingly reliable knowledge. Naturalistic methods have a very good track record of creating it, divine revelation a very bad one. You are foolish to trust it.
He’s trying to blame positivism on the Thomists cuz they read too much King James English!
Well jeepers, dear cornelis, that just about explains everything! LOL!!! :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.