[Vision2020] unequivocal words of God

[Robert Dickow]

Doug,

(N.B. The following sequence of retorts is not logically linked, but each
should be considered individually. Refer to full text for context.)

(Doug Jones writes...)
>Both historic Christianity and the
> Enlightenment hold their ultimate standards to be irrefutable. Why
> pretend that only Christianity does this?

I don't recall anybody ever suggesting that the 'Enlightenment' held its
standards to be irrefutable. They thought that Reason was the most
dependable way (though not the only way, as religion was highly regarded as
another method) to seek and hopefully, with some luck, find Truth. The
'scientific method' was a part of the contributions of the period, but it
was open to having scientific findings toppled when better evidence came to
light.

>But doesn't this just prove my point?

No.

> But
> "Reason" also applies to the norms (propositions) dogmatically "obeyed"
> in deduction, induction, etc. They make whopping claims about the nature
> of the universe and can be refuted.

That the rules of logic are "obeyed" as 'dogma' is meant to sound scathing,
and invokes negative connotations, but really is meaningless. Reason follows
rules for good reason. Oh, ...he he.... Anyway, I just looked up 'dogma' in
the World Book Dictionary (1987, Doubleday) and the first entry reads 'a
belief taught or held as true, especially by authority of a church." The
second entry defines that dogma is any system of ideas. Nothing wrong I
guess with dogma in principle. And as for the 'whopping' claims, however
whopping, scientists themselves will universally be the first to recognize
that they can be refuted. They love refuting each other all the time, you
should have noticed. Some of them even get tenure because of it. On the
other hand some religions I know staunchly claim otherwise.

> And, again, Christians can say the same regarding their ultimate
> standard (i.e., "You can't disprove the Bible without using the very
> norms you're attempting to reject").

Uh.... maybe.....
I guess I would indeed have a hard time disproving something based
substantially on faith using faith alone. But I could try.... let's see.....
Ah, yes. There! I did it! The Bible has been refuted! And it was so easy!

> Also, consider how exclusivist and parochial Dickow's claim is.

Hey, I never went to a Catholic school in my life!

>It
> assumes that only an Enlightenment account of Reason could conceivably
> be correct,

I never claimed that, nor did I assume that. You don't know me, but I should
inform you that I am personally a Mystic, and definitely have my own methods
of Reason and belief. But I digress... Why describe Reason as 'an account'?
This makes it sound like another Bible story. It isn't. It is a real thing,
not just an 'account' of something.

>regally excluding alternate accounts from Asian religions,
> postmodernism, Trinitarianism, etc. It's like saying, "if you suggest
> that the validity of the Enlightenment's account of Reason might be
> called into question [shudder], I think you'll have a very hard time
> arguing that point." Yikes. Yet more secular fundamentalism.

Ha! Trying to confuse me now are you? Well, I think your reference to
'alternate accounts from Asian religions' might be confusing Reason with
Religion in a way that gets us way off track.

But you must agree (if you will just play the game long enough) that using a
rational method to disprove the validity of Reason is a conundrum. One
version might go something like this:

Me: "Ok, just for the sake of argument let's just assume that Reason doesn't
exist".

You: "Ok"

Me: "Ok, if Reason doesn't exist, which we have now assumed, then this
sentence is meaningless."

You: "Why?"

Me: 'Are you arguing with me????!! Because it is an "if...then" statement.
That's Reason, but you just agreed that Reason doesn't exits'.

You: "Then you can't come to that conclusion, either, can you?!"

Me: "And, you can't draw a conclusion either. You used Logic! Foul!!!

End of conversation. God would probably be really angry at that point.

Bob Dickow


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
To: "'Vision 20/20'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 7:02 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] unequivocal words of God


> Bob Dickow wrote:
>
> >Well, no. Reason is not something that could be refuted anyway by its
> >nature. Reason is a process. It involves such things as argumentation,
> >deduction, induction, etc. Reason is not itself a proposition or idea
> that
> >can subject itself to 'refutation' in the sense you use.
>
> But doesn't this just prove my point? Both historic Christianity and the
> Enlightenment hold their ultimate standards to be irrefutable. Why
> pretend that only Christianity does this?
>
> "Reason" does sometimes apply to the process, as does "revelation." But
> "Reason" also applies to the norms (propositions) dogmatically "obeyed"
> in deduction, induction, etc. They make whopping claims about the nature
> of the universe and can be refuted.
>
>
> >Now, if you suggest that the existence or validity of Reason might be
> >called into question, I think you'll have a VERY hard time arguing that
> >point.
>
> And, again, Christians can say the same regarding their ultimate
> standard (i.e., "You can't disprove the Bible without using the very
> norms you're attempting to reject").
>
> Also, consider how exclusivist and parochial Dickow's claim is. It
> assumes that only an Enlightenment account of Reason could conceivably
> be correct, regally excluding alternate accounts from Asian religions,
> postmodernism, Trinitarianism, etc. It's like saying, "if you suggest
> that the validity of the Enlightenment's account of Reason might be
> called into question [shudder], I think you'll have a very hard time
> arguing that point." Yikes. Yet more secular fundamentalism.
>
> Doug Jones
>