Anitra
August 10th 2004, 02:10 PM
This is to provide a thread for even those who do not agree with Dee Dee's basic premises to argue about Dee Dee's basic premises. :nice:
Let's not play dodgeball, either: We all live in the same reality, and whatever is true in reality is true for all of us. If there is One God for all the universe, undivided and indivisible, then Jesus is not God in reality, and that fact is fact for all of us, Christian or not Christian. If Jesus is God in reality, and God is Triune in reality, then that fact is fact for all of us, Christian or not Christian. If there is no God in reality, then that fact is fact for all of us, theist or non-theist.
There are parallels to this, however. The following may be regarded by some, like Dee Dee, as a digression. I am attempting, however, to make a point that is very basic to the discussion. But for those who dislike my "digressions", I am indenting the section so that it may be conveniently skipped. :nice: If the universe is one big cosmic string tangled through 11 or more dimensions into one huge complex ball, that is true for all of us, string theorists or not string theorists. If the universe is self-existent and self-explanatory, with no beginning and no end and no outer limits, then that is true for all of us, naturalists or not naturalists. If evolution is continuous, or episodic, that is true for all of us, Gould followers or Dawkins followers. If black holes suck in everything with no escapes, or if anything escapes, that is true for all of us; Stephen Hawking or not Stephen Hawking. But scientists are able to argue these theories among themselves, and change from one theory to another, and while the debates often get passionate and condemnatory, sociobiologists did not burn critics of sociobiology at the stake, nor did critics of sociobiology burn sociobiologists at the stake. The basic premise of modern science is naturalism -- that the reality is, actually, out there and perceptible and can be reasoned about, and therefore we can check each others observations and reasoning and conclusions and resolve critical inquiries without use of force.
If God IS real, then our differences of opinion about God are like differences of opinion about astronomy -- the stars are going to be the same whatever we say about them, and God is going to be the same whatever we say about God. What we say about God, our ideas about God, are not God-itself, or the experience of God-itself, any more than astronomical theory is the actual heavens. We can discuss our differences of opinion as differences in human opinion about what our common reality is.
Ptolemaic astronomy had a lot of predictive value. It was not totally useless, or it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. The Copernican theory replaced it because the Copernican theory was an improvement, not because Ptolemy's system was completely false and Copernicus's system was completely true. Newton's physics had, and still has, a lot of value. Einstein's physics had more, but there are still many areas in which Newton's physics work just fine. Quantum physics have even more explanatory power, but there are still areas where Einstein's physics work just fine and areas where Newton's physics work just fine. They are all just different human models of the universe. The universe itself does not shift when you shift models.
There are mathematical systems of all kinds; there are system built on "A" and systems built on "not A" and both can be useful, in solving different problems. They are just human models for working with reality; reality itself remains whatever-it-is no matter what model we are using.
End of digression.
I will indent a few more paragraphs, for further convenience, so that those who wish may skip straight to the summary.Our concepts about God, our religions and theologies and creeds, are just human models for dealing with the reality. The reality stays the same whatever model we are using. Some models have more predictive and explanatory power than other models do, but no model is originated, used, and passed on if it has NO predictive and explanatory value.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that any religion is "true" or "false." All religions are 'false' in that no religion can ever be fully congruent with the reality-itself. The only thing that can be fully congruent with a thing is the thing itself. Religions are true to varying degrees, and even that is complex, because every religion has more than one idea in it. Religion A may be right in ways that religion B is wrong, and religion B may be right in ways that religion A is wrong.
Moreover, the followers of religion A may be dealing with a different set of problems than the followers of religion B are. The model that one group is using may not work on the problems the other group is facing.
That we all live in the same reality, then, does not seem sufficient basis to dismiss any religion as 'false' or elevate any one religion to privileged position. We are all equally subject to the same reality, and ultimately, there is no way we can disagree with it. None of us can just float off because we don't believe in gravity. If God is real, then God will have God's way; our free human choices govern only our own fate, not the fate of the universe. If I decide to leap off the Space Needle because I don't believe in gravity, it will be me who breaks, not gravity.
But human theories about gravity are not gravity itself. I must obey gravity, but I do not have to agree with human theories about gravity. We must all, ultimately, obey God, one way or another -- in living, or in dying. But we do not all have to agree on the same understanding about God in order to "live and move and have our being" in God.
Let's not play dodgeball, either: We all live in the same reality, and whatever is true in reality is true for all of us. If there is One God for all the universe, undivided and indivisible, then Jesus is not God in reality, and that fact is fact for all of us, Christian or not Christian. If Jesus is God in reality, and God is Triune in reality, then that fact is fact for all of us, Christian or not Christian. If there is no God in reality, then that fact is fact for all of us, theist or non-theist.
There are parallels to this, however. The following may be regarded by some, like Dee Dee, as a digression. I am attempting, however, to make a point that is very basic to the discussion. But for those who dislike my "digressions", I am indenting the section so that it may be conveniently skipped. :nice: If the universe is one big cosmic string tangled through 11 or more dimensions into one huge complex ball, that is true for all of us, string theorists or not string theorists. If the universe is self-existent and self-explanatory, with no beginning and no end and no outer limits, then that is true for all of us, naturalists or not naturalists. If evolution is continuous, or episodic, that is true for all of us, Gould followers or Dawkins followers. If black holes suck in everything with no escapes, or if anything escapes, that is true for all of us; Stephen Hawking or not Stephen Hawking. But scientists are able to argue these theories among themselves, and change from one theory to another, and while the debates often get passionate and condemnatory, sociobiologists did not burn critics of sociobiology at the stake, nor did critics of sociobiology burn sociobiologists at the stake. The basic premise of modern science is naturalism -- that the reality is, actually, out there and perceptible and can be reasoned about, and therefore we can check each others observations and reasoning and conclusions and resolve critical inquiries without use of force.
If God IS real, then our differences of opinion about God are like differences of opinion about astronomy -- the stars are going to be the same whatever we say about them, and God is going to be the same whatever we say about God. What we say about God, our ideas about God, are not God-itself, or the experience of God-itself, any more than astronomical theory is the actual heavens. We can discuss our differences of opinion as differences in human opinion about what our common reality is.
Ptolemaic astronomy had a lot of predictive value. It was not totally useless, or it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. The Copernican theory replaced it because the Copernican theory was an improvement, not because Ptolemy's system was completely false and Copernicus's system was completely true. Newton's physics had, and still has, a lot of value. Einstein's physics had more, but there are still many areas in which Newton's physics work just fine. Quantum physics have even more explanatory power, but there are still areas where Einstein's physics work just fine and areas where Newton's physics work just fine. They are all just different human models of the universe. The universe itself does not shift when you shift models.
There are mathematical systems of all kinds; there are system built on "A" and systems built on "not A" and both can be useful, in solving different problems. They are just human models for working with reality; reality itself remains whatever-it-is no matter what model we are using.
End of digression.
I will indent a few more paragraphs, for further convenience, so that those who wish may skip straight to the summary.Our concepts about God, our religions and theologies and creeds, are just human models for dealing with the reality. The reality stays the same whatever model we are using. Some models have more predictive and explanatory power than other models do, but no model is originated, used, and passed on if it has NO predictive and explanatory value.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that any religion is "true" or "false." All religions are 'false' in that no religion can ever be fully congruent with the reality-itself. The only thing that can be fully congruent with a thing is the thing itself. Religions are true to varying degrees, and even that is complex, because every religion has more than one idea in it. Religion A may be right in ways that religion B is wrong, and religion B may be right in ways that religion A is wrong.
Moreover, the followers of religion A may be dealing with a different set of problems than the followers of religion B are. The model that one group is using may not work on the problems the other group is facing.
That we all live in the same reality, then, does not seem sufficient basis to dismiss any religion as 'false' or elevate any one religion to privileged position. We are all equally subject to the same reality, and ultimately, there is no way we can disagree with it. None of us can just float off because we don't believe in gravity. If God is real, then God will have God's way; our free human choices govern only our own fate, not the fate of the universe. If I decide to leap off the Space Needle because I don't believe in gravity, it will be me who breaks, not gravity.
But human theories about gravity are not gravity itself. I must obey gravity, but I do not have to agree with human theories about gravity. We must all, ultimately, obey God, one way or another -- in living, or in dying. But we do not all have to agree on the same understanding about God in order to "live and move and have our being" in God.