[Vision2020] The Benefits of Polarization

[Ted Moffett]

Doug, et. al.

Doug, please respond to my questions and post your reply on vision2020.  I 
have numbered them for reference.

Some people actually want to THINK about religion on rational grounds using 
"LOGIC," and thus may find your usually eloquent reply enlightening.  These 
issues may seem removed from the intents of vision2020, but really underlie 
the actions of people in our community every day of the week!

It appears that you are suggesting the Biblical system justifies itself and 
the progressive system justifies itself, each based on separate logical 
rules, which are self contained and not extensively applicable to the other 
system.

1.  Do you think your Trinitarian set of logical rules is in any sense 
"superior" to the progressives' set of logical rules, or is it just a 
different but equal set of rules?   Of course you do, but surprise me!

2.  How can any progressive understand what your Trinitarian logical rules 
are with no common ground of logic to refer to between the systems?

It seems you are only writing to bolster your own community, following your 
set of logical rules, that cannot be communicated to a progressive because 
there is no common ground of logic for a progressive to reference to 
comprehend your logical rules.

The suggestion that there are no neutral common rules of logic that apply 
across ideologies, cultures and religions, is often thrown out the window, 
even by people who insist on this approach, as soon as there is a practical 
reason to do so.  Thus when a Toyota breaks down in Saudi Arabia, Moscow, 
Idaho, Japan, China or India, the different ideologies, religions and 
cultures represented are suddenly rendered equal, for a moment in this one 
example, according to certain rules of logic, scientifically applied, as to 
the operation of the internal combustion engine, the friction of brake 
drums, the mechanisms of gears, etc. etc.

Now suddenly the trained Toyota mechanic of any faith or culture or 
political system follows the same logical rules, unless of course you run 
into a "party line" interpretation of science, such as the Soviet Union or 
China once promoted, which just got in the way of scientific progress in 
those countries.

3.  Is there a special Trinitarian set of logical rules for fixing a Toyota?

Of course you can say my argument is fine and good for cars, but not for 
religion.  A whole different game.  But my argument applies to the discovery 
and release of the most powerful physical forces known to humanity, the 
atomic forces in nuclear weapons and reactors.

4.  Are you going to suggest that these forces are trivial in the sense that 
the logical rules involved in their operation cannot be applied to religious 
systems of thought, and have no fundamental connection to how EVERYTHING IN 
OUR SHARED UNIVERSE (BIG assumption in CAPS) operates?

5.  If you claim the logical rules of nuclear physics do not represent a 
shared common ground of logic that can be applied to religion, how valid is 
your claim considering the fact that ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE OF ATOMS, 
MOSTLY CARBON ATOMS FORGED EONS AGO IN PROCESSES IN STARS INVOLVING THE SAME 
NUCLEAR REACTIONS DESCRIBED BY THE LOGICAL RULES OF PHYSICS?

It would appear our very existence as living beings involves the common 
shared operation of these logical rules of physics.  In fact, a theist could 
argue convincingly that we have discovered, at least in part, the logic of 
God in our logical descriptions of nuclear physics.  Certainly the logic of 
God should be common among all human beings.  Many "progressives" would 
agree with this last statement.

Many radically differing major cultures and religions have scientists who 
agree on common rules of mathematics and logic that must be followed in the 
exacting extreme to develop nuclear energy and bombs.  NO rejection of a 
common ground of logic in this example, at least from the point of view of 
the scientists following these differing religions and cultures.

If the logical rules to develop an atom bomb are the same for a scientist in 
Hindu India, Islamic Pakistan, Daoist China and Christian America then... 
well, Doug, no doubt you will have some sophisticated metaphysical reason 
why this does not demonstrate a neutral common ground of logic, because of 
reasons contained in YOUR metaphysical ideological system.

I of course am not expanding on how the logical rules of physics can EXACTLY 
be applied to a specific religion.  But the logical principles involved have 
commonalities with the whole tradition of logic and mathematics, a tradition 
that contains logical rules that can be applied to argument about religious 
thought: principles that a Trinitarian and a progressive should be able to 
agree on.

I could extend my argument to the operation of the human brain, according to 
scientific principles of neuroscience, a brain that can be shown to be very 
similar based on genetic evidence.  Then we might have a scientific basis 
for a common ground of logic generated by the human brain, where logic is 
created in human experience.  This would be common, but perhaps not 
"objective."

It may seem I am changing subjects now, but not really.  I have one more 
question.

One of the main problems with basing philosophy and/or religion on the 
scientific method, such as I am attempting, is the difficulty in 
establishing a rational fact based ethics.

It's easy with God as your starting point to claim to have unchanging 
perfect ethical rules.  But you still face the daunting task of defending 
how you truly understand, and have been correctly revealed, the exact 
ethical rules of God, with a limited and flawed human mind interpreting.  
Christians usually downplay the profound and complex problem of defending 
the validity of their particular revelation of the ethical rules of God when 
there are many differing ethical interpretations of the Bible, etc. across 
different sects of Christianity.

5.  Do differing Christian sects also have differing systems of logic to 
justify their differing interpretations of the Bible, and lack a common 
neutral ground of logic to reference, when they fundamentally disagree, for 
example, to pick a profound non-trivial case, on the death penalty?

It seems that if you do not defend a common ground of logic in some sense, 
the logic behind the differing sects of Christianity is subject to the same 
subjective fracturing and relativism of logical systems that you are 
suggesting afflicts disagreements between modernity and progressivism and 
your Trinitarianism.

Ted

>From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
>To: "'Vision 20/20'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Benefits of Polarization
>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:05:13 -0500
>
>Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> > I learned (at a private college) that the justification of religion on
> > rational grounds is a fallacy.  Religion is at its base a matter of
>faith,
> > not a matter of science.
>
>You should be aware, Bob, how this translates: it's like a Christian
>saying "I learned that
>justifying modernity on biblical grounds is not possible. Modernity is
>at base unjustifiable
>because it's not in the Bible." The sort of distinctions between
>reason/faith you invoke are inherently geared to preclude justifying
>anything outside your own view.
>
>In the same way, Ted Moffett speaks of the "logical difficulties
>involved in rationally defending Christianity" as if logic were some
>neutral common ground and not the special "Bible" of modernity. Ted's
>claims would sound like this coming from a confused Christian: "the
>biblical difficulties involved in biblically defending modernity are
>profound." Not very helpful is it? It just assumes what's in question
>and misunderstands the whole disagreement.
>
>
>Doug Jones
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus