[FoRK] reas. conv. 9/27 Re: Meaning

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

[#3 (of 3?) in a "reasoned conversation" about Christianity and atheism]

Hi Corinna [et al],

On Sep 27, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Corinna wrote:
> Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie <at> radicalcentrism.org>
> writes:
>> <snip>
>
> (The snip is not meant to be disrespectful, just to indicate that I  
> did read it.)

Thank you, I appreciate your willingness to read through what I said.

> It doesn't seem to me that you're promoting a Biblical version of  
> Christianity. It sounds like you're taking
> one of the more "liberal"  (in the sense of liberal theology) ways  
> of attempting to reconcile Christian belief
> with modern thought.

Hmm.  Okay, I can see why you might've gotten that impression, and I  
apologize for the confusion.  Actually, I don't see myself as any  
more "liberal" than, say, Thomas Aquinas was for trying to articulate  
Christianity in the language of Greek logic.   I do think it is  
important to understand modern _thought_, but that doesn't mean we  
need to sacrifice Christian principles simply to conform to modern  
_beliefs_.  If you like, you can group me with the evangelicals  
(though not all of them would want to be grouped with me :-), though  
to be more precise I consider myself "transformational."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformationalism

> Christianity (and metaphical thinking in general) says that these  
> categories are Truth. That the world *is really* this way. It's an  
> assertion. It's an imposition of meaning onto the patterns of the  
> world

Hmm. I  think there's two different issues at stake. Like you, I  
agree that we humans construct categories, and it is dangerous to  
mistake _those_ for Truth. However, I do believe that those  
categories do (imperfectly) correspond to real "Truth" out there, in  
the way what that our mathematical theories (imperfectly) correspond  
to the real "Truth" of the universe.  Yes, they are both leaps of  
faith, but I consider them equally well-justified.  Perhaps as a  
physicist, I am a bit closer to just how arbitrary and courageous it  
was for Newton and Einstein (or Pope Gregory and Augistine, on the  
social side) to take the leap that they did.

You may not agree, but I'd be interested in understanding why.

> Subjective meaning doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism

Could you perhaps expand upon that?  My understanding is that  
"subjective meaning" implies that we _are_ consciously imposing our  
artificial categories upon an anarchic world, in order to give us a  
putative basis for meaningful action.  Is that what you mean? How is  
that different than, in your words, choosing a "good story" over  
"truth"?

> We choose not to rely on emotion because there is ample evidence
> that emotions are ephemeral. We choose to rely on rational thought
> because there is ample evidence that rational thinking leads to
> (semi) permanent conclusions about the way the world works

Um, not sure I follow you.  Last I checked, my thoughts were about as  
ephemeral as my emotions, and (in many cases) just as likely to be  
inaccurate. The question is, do either of those ephemera provide  
useful information about a Real World?  I would argue that the  
existence of social systems based on relationship is evidence that  
emotions *do* have value in uncovering Truth, and nowadays there is  
even scientific evidence to that effect:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/emotion/

> The only version of Western religion that imo is approachable with  
> reason is Deism. And Deism has no real bearing on everyday life, it  
> just gives you a framework for asserting that there is meaning in  
> the world.

Um, but isn't such Deism the original reason Western civilization  
even bothered to hope that the universe *might* be understandable?   
Wasn't that originally an act of faith, even if it appears as  
"settled fact" to us moderns?

If so, then is it not equally fair to ask what motivated human beings  
to consider Deism, e.g., the Christian tradition?

I'm not saying the answer is obvious; but, why is it "obvious" to you  
that the question isn't even worth asking?  How is that any different  
that a fundamentalist refusing to consider evolution because it  
doesn't make any sense within his worldview?  Isn't your life  
supported by Western civilization in the same way his is by modern  
science?

> So, in conclusion, if you are promoting a Biblical Christianity,  
> I'm sorry to tell you that it is incoherent, and I will not bore  
> you by repeating all those claims of contradictions and nonsense  
> found in the Bible (and theology in general), or annoy Eugen by  
> continuing the conversation.

If you are asserting that "a priori" that _any_ position I might hold  
concerning the Bible *must* be inconsistent -- and that your own  
position is so True as to admit no argument -- then yeah, it does  
seem that we're at the end of our road.  I appreciate your  
consideration, and apologize to you (and Eugene) for the hassle.

If the rest of the list feels the same way, I'll let it drop here.   
However, I do want to at least tie up a few dangling threads before I  
go:

On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Tom Higgins wrote:
> then you might be part of the problem

I absolutely realize I'm part of the problem, which is why I'm trying  
very hard to be part of the solution.

For what it is worth, I *do* accept the fact that that the followers  
of God have both committed and rationalized great evil.  I own the  
sins of historical and Biblical Christianity as I do my own, even as  
I accept the sins of American civilization and Indian culture (both  
of which I belong to, and have benefited from, to my sometimes  
shame).  Though I'd hope you'd also allow me to claim a similar  
connection to Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Florence  
Nightingale, John Adams, and St. Patrick; or do you think them also  
agents of great evil?

How about you? Do you consider your belief system incapable of ever  
being used for evil? Or, to Stephen's point, do you think it is  
possible to have a "Monopoly on Truth" by being "purely rational"  
without any actual "beliefs" at all?

On Sep 27, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Russell Turpin wrote:
> "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at radicalcentrism.org>:
>> ..reasoned..
>
> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it  
> means.

I guess not. I thought, at least on FoRK, it meant clearly stating  
your assumptions, explaining your logic, and trying hard to  
understand the other person's point of view and identify areas of  
both agreement and disagreement.  My bad.

-- Ernie P.

P.S. Congratulations on the new job, Corinna.