Joined up thinking

Ouch! The truth hurts…

We could test this, of course. It wouldn’t be hard to construct a survey that listed some propositions. It might be interesting, if we could get enough people to fill it in. What do you think?

Richard:

I’m with DH on this one. I grew up in a fundamentalist environment and grew tired of hearing “liberals” being dismissed as immoral heathens. My reaction to this was to move to the left for a while (in college) and became very disillusioned beause the left dimissed “conservatives” as being ignorant. I know many people on the left who are quite moral and have a deep faith, and I know people on the right who are extremely thoughtful and intelligent. I also know people on the left who are rather stupid and people on the right who are immoral heathens. So I say to all of this, “What’s your point?”

I believe in evolution. I know Christians who do not. I do not think they are ignorant. I simply think they are wrong. I do not support the ordination of practicing homosexuals. I know Christians on the left who do. I do not think they are immoral heathens compromising the word of God. I just think they are wrong.

Let’s debate the substance of the issues. Let’s be passionate about what we believe, and let’s feel free to argue in hard-hitting manner; but let’s avoid the name-calling and questioning of people’s character and intelligence. If, after all, we believe we are right, we won’t have to resort to name calling that will dismiss those with whom we don’t agree; and our discussions can proceed in the context of conviction and humility. I recall some rather smart guy writing in the New Testament that all of us see through a glass darkly.

I have truly enjoyed reading the posts on global warming between you and Randy. As one who is inclined to believe that the earth is indeed warming, but rather skeptical of the human impact, I have gleaned important insight from the two of you as you have debated the subject. How helpful of a discussion would there have been if you just called each other names? I certainly wouldn’t have benefitted as one who wants to learn from two intelligent and informed individuals who disagree.

And while I may be skeptical of the human impact of climate change (though not certain), I also know that Iraq is not a stable democracy. In some sense, that question is almost insulting.

I think you should develop a questionnaire, but let me recommend that before you publish it, have someone who leans left and someone who leans right read it over to make sure both persons believe the questions and answers are worded fairly.

But don’t ask me; I don’t align myself with either group any longer. Both sides spend too much time insulting other people.

By the way, thanks for publishing a very thought-provoking blog.

One should be careful about throwing around the word “science” in a monolithic way, let alone as an epistemological Holy Grail. As Nicholas Lash observes in a scathing critique of The God Delusion, it is precisely this “Anglophone heresy” (Martin Rudwick) of which Dawkins is guilty.

“Only in the English-speaking world,” Lash writes, “do we speak of ’science’ in the singular, a habit … which has two unfortunate sets of consequences. On the one hand, it encourages the illusion that there is, roughly speaking, some single set of procedures which qualify as ’scientific’. On the other, it encourages the expectation, where knowledge is concerned, that ’science’ is to be favourably contrasted with something else: ‘arts’ perhaps, or ‘letters’.” Thus do we arrive at the post-enlightenment cloven fiction of “two cultures” about which C.P. Snow expressed concern almost fifty years ago.

Of course, this is not to legitimise pseudo science (like creationism) or bad science (like ID), but it is to guard against ideologically driven truth-claims - i.e. reason deployed in the service of power - whether they come from neo-positivists like Dawkins or from the oil-grubbing neo-cons who have shaped the policies of the Bush administration in the theatres of war and ecology.

Larry,

I’m not sure if he meant it to be “a scientifically correct observation”,

Are you really serious?

When you read the last bit:

PS Yes I made up all the correlations, no evidence but personal prejudice.

How scientifically correct do you think I thought the points were?

Come on, wake up and smell the roses.

Allan, thanks for the kind words and the supporting post you gave. I’m not a very good communicator but I at least try. You definitiely put into words what I was trying to say. Thank you so much.

Dave, I’m with Larry and Allan on this one. To assist Larry and to show agreement with him as well, Statistics is a science. You phrasing it as such implied the science you so readily reject. However, putting “science aside”, Larry is right with the statement he has here: “In particular correlation does not imply causation..” This is really the reason Larry, Allan and I object to this type of excersize. Let alone the indirect “name calling” that Allan mentioned in his post.

Richard, you are an excellent ventriloquist!

Richard you misunderstood what I said. While I am a Creationist I don’t understand how a Christian can not believe in ID unless I’m misunderstanding what ID is. It is my understanding that ID is the belief that “God created the heavens and the earth”. Creationism gets into the specifics. ID does not.

All Creationism aside, I’m really surprised by Kim and Richard not adhereing to the belief in ID. We can disagree on young/old earth, etc. but to not believe that “God created the heavens and the earth” is really heretical for which I’m very, very surprised.

On a humorous note: Are you and Kim saying God isn’t intelligent and that is why you don;t believe in Intelligent Design?

Just to add to what Kim said…
“Intelligent Design” goes much further than the simple credal statement that God created the universe. I suppose this comes down to whether there is any place in our thinking for the accidental, the random. If there isn’t, then clearly you have to reject evolutionary theory and adopt the ID position, or something like it, and claim that every event is down to the planned and foreknown activity of God. That’s OK, but it can never be called a scientific position. It isn’t disproveable and doesn’t make predictions. A Christian who accepts that evolution through natural selection is essentially correct is obliged to ask themselves if the God who creates such a universe to which change and chance are so integral is consistent with what we know of God as he revealed himself through Jesus. I believe there is such consistency, because the God of an evolutionary universe is a God who grants freedom to His creation. The evolutionary process is never closed, and there is always opportunity for development — and failure. I recall John Polkinghorne saying in a lecture something like, the gift of love is always the gift of independence. That’s precisely what God has granted his creation, if evolutionary theory is correct.

I still think your two positions don’t take into account that God created the universe. The Bible says this but it still seems you both are talking from both sides of your mouth with regard to ID. I’m still very surprised that you two don’t believe in ID. I understand fully why you don’t believe in Creationism. I still don’t see how one can say ID and Dawkins are from opposite ends of the same coin.

I really have a problem with people attacking a group by saying “they don’t know how to read the Bible”. Have I ever accused you of that? I think we need to be very, very careful with our words with regard to things like this. We can disagree but that is different.

You say God isn’t an intity in the Universe. I believe He is everywhere and He is somewhere at the same time. Why else can Christians say that their was a bodily resurrection of Christ. Your statement about God not being an entity seems to go against this point. Jesus was fully God and He physically rose and is alive again today. In reference to John 1:1 Christ and the Trinity was alive before the Universe began. Even in the NT, in reference to the Second Coming, it says .”…we shall see Him as He is…” It seems to me that you don’t understand the multidiminsionality of God and project that onto those like me who actually believe in the multidiminsionality but are misunderstood by yourself, Kim.

Where in Scripture is randomness confirmed. If God knows every hair on our head, knew us before we were in our mothers womb, etc. then how can “randomness” be supported with Scripture saying otherwise?