"Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:SwpXj.1679$IK1.915@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:%awWj.886$IK1.657@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> *snip*
>>>
>>>I know. I went there, at your suggestion. I read, and I decided that it
>>>really wasn't for me. I am a scientist, and philosophy just leaves me
>>>bored witless! Someone even suggested I join the local U3A philosophy
>>>group. I just looked at them.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps this attitude pertains because you've yet to see how philosophy
>> underlies almost all of science? Mathematics, the "langugage of
>> science", is nothing but very stylized formal logic.
>
> That displays your ignorance of advanced mathematics.
In what way, pray tell?
>>
>> I would think anyone with a real scientific aptitude wouldn't be able
to
>> just ignore the underpinnings of their discipline like this. But I
also
>> am not oblivious to the ills of the modern world, one of which is this
>> artificial chasm that's been dug between science and the humanities,
>> allowing no crossover. This pigeonholing of human inquiry and
knowledge
>> is a very recent phenomenon in human history, and the jury is still out
>> as to whether or not it's valid.
>>
> I agree, but what is observedly different is the different ways of
> examining the world. It is related to the difference between top down
and
> bottom up approaches, or reductionism vs. teleology, and was the subject
> of the conference paper I referred to elsewhere. Reductionism has
patently
> failed, but teleology has not suceeded either, so I think that there is
> still some way to go. Complexity theory looked very promising a decade
> ago, but has also stalled. The prime example must be climate change,
where
> things are so bad that all they do is average over the various
approaches
> to try to get some sort of concensus view. That is the most blatant
> admission of failure I have ever seen, but I know of no better approach.
Balance is better.
>>
>>>>>>Chris, please don't lecture me out of your encyclopedic lack of
>>>>>>understanding concerning the nature of knowledge. Seeing something
>>>>>>occur doesn't automatically equate to knowing it did, nor is seeing
>>>>>>something occur necessary for knowledge that it did. What counts is
>>>>>>warrant/justification for the belief, and when you've got enough of
>>>>>>it, then it becomes "knowledge" for the one who has it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Philosophical twaddle as far as I can see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then you need to get your eyes checked.
>>>>
>>>
>>>True. Must remember to make an appointment soon.
>>
>>
>> You need a balance you don't have right now.
>>
>>
>
> *snip*
>>>
>>>I don't see the problem. Its like going into the supermarket and seeing
>>>lots of different brands of beans. One time you will choose one brand,
>>>another time another. Rowland just keeps the shelves well stocked.
>>
>>
>> You've conveniently left out of your characterization that at least
some
>> of the brands are poison; that the person who picks them up and takes
>> them home may end up making their last meal on earth out of them.
>>
> Good point. If it were true, I would agree with you, but I trust him
> enough to believe that he has weeded out the poisonous ones, although I
> admit to not having checked. Do you have any examples?
Look for yourself:
"Questions about hell and universalism are very, very im****tant for
thinking
and compassionate Christians." [http://myreader.co.uk/msg/1267115.aspx]
Thus we have it from Rowland himself that the falsehood or truth of
universalism, the belief that eventually all will be saved, is critical
for
Christians (assuming there are no brain-dead, steely-hearted Christians).
Then we find:
"In several Bible colleges I have asked the students to answer, without
toomuch time to think, this question: 'Does God love the devil?'
Invariably
the responses are equally divided between 'Yes' 'No' and 'Don't know.'
Of course, God is love. There is no situation where he cannot be loving.
Our
dilemma is to relate his love to his justice.
Here's a pot pourri of quotes on this theme. You decide!"
[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/678.htm]
This is followed by quotations of no less than a dozen differing and
mutually exclusive opinions on this "very, very im****tant" question facing
Christians. What is Rowland's guidance here on such an im****tant belief?
"You decide". That it! No sharing of his belief, no pointing out of a
flaw
here or there; just a listing of a dozen different beliefs that contradict
one another and you "Go for it".
Now that's all according to Rowland's characterization of this issue,
Chris,
not mine. He's just put a dozen different brands of beans on the shelf
and
put a for sale sign on each and every one of them. Rowland has said in
other places that he "leans toward" universalism when the alternative is
"the annihilation of the wicked". In other words, throwing out
annihilation, which leaves only universalism or hell as a place (state) of
eternal torment, he's for universalism.
If we were to analyze just how im****tant this question is to one's faith,
we
would find that being right is critical to one's salvation and
sanctification. No one in their right mind, for example, would suffer for
their faith in Jesus Christ if it didn't matter to God, and if God
eventually saves everyone regardless, it obviously doesn't matter to God
very much. So anyone who is a universalist, and sane, isn't going to be a
martyr for their faith. So on a critical issue like this, Rowland's
response is "You decide", after serving up a great big helping of
contradictory opinions. Because they are contradictory, and because they
are so critical to living a life pleasing to God, and thus are critical to
one's salvation, it's not much of a stretch to say that some of these
beans
are poison beans. Yet our dear whited sepluchre, Rowland, serves them all
up with a "You decide"; without so much as a recommendation or warning!
He
acts like he's just provided us a ring of color swatches, because we're
thinking about painting the guest bathroom!
>
>> Why do I constantly have to take you and rub your nose in the obvious??
>> Why do you do what you just did here? Leave out the whole crux of the
>> issue so you can make it sound innocent? If beliefs didn't matter,
then
>> why did Jesus come to teach us the "Truth"? If it really doesn't
matter
>> what anyone takes from Rowland's list of beliefs and opinions, and
>> believes, then Christ came in vain.
>>
> Probably because I am just a flawed human being, and capable of error.
There's a difference between error and failure to meet one's epistemic
obligations.
>
>> And YOU! You're the one who was arguing no one could act contrary to
>> their beliefs. Now you're implying it doesn't really matter what
anyone
>> believes. If we put the two of those conclusions together (forgetting
for
>> the moment there isn't any valid justification for either one of
them!),
>> we end up with it doesn't really matter what anyone does! You sure you
>> want to end up there? Are you, perhaps, an anarchist? I wouldn't
think
>> a person who loves science would be an anarchist.
>>
>> More likely, you just have never subjected your own beliefs to any sort
>> of critical analysis, with the result that by now you've got a noetic
>> structure chalk full of contradictory beliefs. You may want to think
>> about a little spring cleaning this year, Chris.
>>
> Too late. Its autumn now, about to become winter. And at last we are
> receiving substantial rain (more than half an inch for the first time
> since January), praise the Lord.
Fine, be flippant. Enjoy.
Chuck Stamford
|
