At 20:59 31-7-99 -0500, Rudi Borth wrote:
>Apologies for extensive cross-posting!
>
>Readers who have the motivation and can find the time are cordially
>invited to let me know (off-list if thought preferable) WHY (for what
>reasons) they disagree with the statements they disagree with.
Dear Rudy,
This is a "why" question, so I'll try to give you the cause, logical
reason, and purpose of disagreeing. Let me first say that I agree largely
with the "worldview" you present as I think our perceptions and thinking
are allways immanent in this "world" and our ideas about anything or anyone
transcendent ("outside" this world) either are constructed by us from
"elements" we find "inside" this world and thus are still pointing to
"inside" things (be it some absolutized thing like our ratio or be it some
fantasy about a god or gods) OR they are the result of our observation of
some "revelation" from outside this world, be it directly or by reports
from history. I don't think it is "rational" to exclude this last
possibility beforehand. Then it becomes crucial how we read and understand
those reports, our understanding leading to some (religious) belief about
the "outside contect" that makes us better understand the world and
underpin our worldview. I disagree with you because I think you underpin
your worldview with the prejudice that there is no such "revelation" in
history. I can understand that as the historical reports (in the bible and
may be in other "holy" books) are often understood out of their historical
context and interpreted in the way we interprete modern scientific reports
or reports of good modern journalists. Moreover our understanding is often
polluted by ideas we constructed from immanent observations with a
prejudiced worldview, e.g. we construct ideas about the "properties" of God
in such a way and after that it is quite easy to "prove" that this leads to
contradictions.
So: "why" do I disagree?
(1) "cause". I grew up in a culture that has its roots in Hebrew,
Christian, and Greec tradition, a history over five millennia starting with
Abraham and his children the Jewish people. It clearly tells us about God
and His ways with mankind, "His people". It also clearly tells us that the
"world" (universe including "mind" and "matter" and all possible "norms"
and "values") are His creation (which doesn't mean that He is the "first
cause" in some temporary causal chain: time itself is created by Him to
"contain" everything created) an that we ("man", men and women) made a mess
of it by not listening to Him and thus taking the road that leads to death.
(2) "logical reason". To answer this I refer to the very logical
philosophical system developed by Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd, two
philosopher at the Free University in Amsterdam. They are in the above
mentioned tradition as aggravated in the calvinistic tradition. See H.
Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (3 volumes) and the web
site of Andrew Basden at http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/Dooy/
(3) "purpose". I think the purpose of my disagreeing is to make "all
mankind" recognise God and glorify Him in the long run of history.
>My current
>answers are given after each question.
with my comments:
>1) How did we get here?
>
> Through evolution, probably from pre-bacterial biochemical
> beginnings.
Very likely but how come? I think this world with its (natural) laws was
created in such a way that this all could happen, without any laws that
govern this process no evolution.
>2) Why are we here?
>
> 'Why' questions ask for (a) purpose, or (b) logical reasons, or
> (c) causes, and the intended meaning should always be made clear.
>
> (a) No purpose known or likely, unless self-preservation built
> into all living things fits this label.
purpose: love and happiness and glory of God Who "saw it was good" when He
created all things.
> (b) Meaningless in this context.
No meaningless, but, with all respect, my answer to this is "God knows",
at least I don't know!
> (c) See 1).
see 1) but don't take "cause" too literally here, it is a concept taylored
to immanent causal chains according to the God-given laws of His creation
and only metaphorically applicable to the relation of the transcendent God
and His creation.
>3) Is there a God?
>
> No. "There is no need for this hypothesis", and no evidence
> supporting it.
"No need"? I think there is enough man-caused misery in this world and it
escalates as we forgot about God and we don't "love God above all" and
(what follows from this) "love our neighbours like ourselves". The history
of five millennia gives sufficient evidence (but of course you are free to
discard this evidence, but in my opinion this leeds literally "nowhere").
>4) What happens after death?
>
> Self-preservation having stopped, the worms and bacteria and
> funeral rites recycle the material.
That's what we see. I think it's the wrong question: "after" refers to a
process in time, in created time. I think this question should be replaced
with the statement that we are God's own in life and in death and He keeps
us in eternity in His eternal love for us.
>5) Have we separate souls?
>
> No. There is no evidence for brain activity separate from living
> brains.
The distinction between "body" and "soul" is a fallacy of Greec
philosophy, in Hebrew tradition "man is a living soul". I think there is a
lot of "activity" seperate from living brains, only not "brain activity".
>6) What about eternity and infinity?
>
> Words defined as concepts opposite to, or as extensions of, the
> familiar every-day experiences of limited duration, space, number.
> They have no certain area of applicability, except as mathematical
> constructs.
As for "eternity" I think it is a usefull concept as opposed to "temporal"
or "with an infinite time interval". Time itself is created by the eternal
God.
>7) How did it all start?
>
> A question asking for speculation and interpretation of sparse
> evidence.
A question that can not be answered by looking "inside" in this creation (
we can't look at or before the "Big Bang" ), systematically "start" is a
moment in time and "it all" wasn't created at a moment in our time. The
bible doesn't say "at the begin God created heaven and earth" but "in the
beginning". I think that marks a crucial difference.
>3. Atheism is the only religious view made plausible, not to say
>justified, by the _whole_ body (rather than selected traits) of human
>experience of reality. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition
>when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." (Bertrand
>Russell)
Agree, but there is also (historical) experience of God revealing Himself
in reality. Atheists bluntly deny this. I think there is sufficient ground
for the propositions I made above to be true.
>8. All questions (and Notes like this one) presuppose some background
>facts or views, often unstated or tacitly assumed to be obvious or
>generally agreed.
I wholeheartedly agree with this one and I tried to make my
"presuppositions" clear with some argumentation why I hold them.
>10. Why should one care about a range of 'possible metaphysical
>positions' for which no foundations or even hints are detectable in
>the real world?
Here we agree again, but I don't think you accept the "hints" I detect in
this real world. I mentioned them above.
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
Arie
BetterSystems,
Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager,
Educational Instrumentation Technology,
Computers in Education.
Huizerweg 62,
1402 AE Bussum,
The Netherlands.
voice: x31-35-6981676
E-mail: mailto:[log in to unmask]
{========================================================================}
When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977).
===========================================================================
Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird.
|
