tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post6128772228862221484..comments2023-10-25T04:22:54.910-07:00Comments on An Anglican Priest: The Ruminations of a Canterbury Cap Catholic: Rev. Dr. Hasserthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-64407363487652409212007-05-07T15:01:00.000-07:002007-05-07T15:01:00.000-07:00Since it was an English cleric, Robert Grossteste,...Since it was an English cleric, Robert Grossteste, who formulated the scientific method on the basis of a couple of verses in Psalm 148, none of us should be surprised at the dificulties which non-believers have with real science. The first time I ever served at the eucharist it was for the Rev'd Doctor William Pollard, the head of Oak Ridge Institute and probably the premiere nuclear physicist in the United States at that time. <BR/><BR/>And Anglicans should know, even if many regard it as a scandal that most of the early members of the Royal Society were English parish priests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-91016196229877096782007-05-02T09:12:00.000-07:002007-05-02T09:12:00.000-07:00It just goes to show that it doesn't always takes ...It just goes to show that it doesn't always takes brains or consistent thinking to become a bigwig legislator in Washington!J. Gordon Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03941152529096287366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-68746689737521096662007-05-01T18:05:00.000-07:002007-05-01T18:05:00.000-07:00I think one of the most glaring disconnects in mod...I think one of the most glaring disconnects in modern rationalistic thought can be found in the area of environmental conservation. On the one hand, rationalists insist that human beings are purely the result of blind natural processes, i.e., man is nature. On the other hand, many of the same rationalists will insist that human beings have no right to "encroach" upon "unspoiled" habitats, i.e., man is different from nature. The two propositions are irreconcilable. Words like "encroach" and "unspoiled" presuppose a system of objective values, but rationalists insist that such a system does not exist. They say that values are merely the likes and dislikes of those in power. From a strictly naturalistic point of view, then, there is no fundamental difference between a pollution-belching factory or even a nuclear bomb on the one hand, and a beaver's dam on the other. Except, of course, that they know that there is a difference. They've just given up the ability to articulate meaningfully what the difference is.<BR/><BR/>welshmanwelshmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021662418461137766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-62435536622393231752007-05-01T05:46:00.000-07:002007-05-01T05:46:00.000-07:00Oft overlooked by scientists, and its cheer leader...Oft overlooked by scientists, and its cheer leaders, is the inconvenient fact that the scientific method, the basis for all valid science, is based on a metaphysical presupposition that is not itself verifiable by the scientific method. Indeed, the bedrock presupposition of all science is usually overstated as the principle that "the universe is regular and predicable." (Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy.) Obviously, no scientific experiment can be done to prove this principle as science presupposes it. Thus, the veracity of all scientific conclusions depends on a underlying philosophical/metaphysical presupposition requiring nonscientific proofs. This alone ought to make scientists very uncomfortable, as there whole scientific edifice is actually built on nonscientific metaphysics and philosophy, two fields usually beyond there depths but absolutely essential to the validity of their enterprise.<BR/><BR/>Worse yet, common sense and personal experience inform us only that "the MATERIAL universe is GENERALLY regular and predicable," which does not conform to the more absolutist presupposition that science textbooks usually present (without much justification). But, luckily for scientists, this moderated statement of the scientific principle (i.e., general predictability) is sufficient to bolster ALL the USEFUL science every done. Indeed, no law of nature need be absolute in the face of rare supernatural interventions. All scientists may rest comfortably knowing that, virtually always, an apple will fall down from its branch when ripe, but that should God want for some reason to suspend this general rule, he could.<BR/><BR/>But hardcore scientists go further by insisting that the universe is MATERIAL ONLY, hence persons with free will and spirit, whether divine, angelic, or human, cannot upset the ABSOLUTE RULE OF REGULARITY AND PREDICTABILITY (i.e., the absence of the supernatural and freewill). Hence, in its most militant form, science is a metaphysical philosophy that a priori denies the possibility of free will, the divine, the supernatural, and real free choice. But, these hardcore assertions flie in the face of the witness of the entire human experience and eyewitness testimony. By way of simple counter-example, who but God alone can predict the fical ways of women's hearts? Certainly not nerdy scientists! (When's the last time a Scientific Nobel Prize winner dated a super model?) <BR/><BR/>Worse yet, hardcore scientism doesn't have a coherent logical basis, though it often claims such a conceit. Indeed, as already pointed out, absolute materialism and regularity are unnecessary presuppositions for the vast majority of all scientific projects, and certainly for those that have actually rendered useful technological advances. Thus, they seem to be nothing more than baseless, contrarian, gnostic assertions.<BR/><BR/>* * * * *<BR/><BR/>In sharp contrast, Christianity is based on public revelation witnessed by many and handed down to us today with virtually no alterations, and certainly no significant ones. It is a historical and empirical faith that is not completely at odds with logic and the human experience, though it is indeed mysterious and transcends full human comprehension. Moreover, Christianity is completely compatible with the moderated scientific principle that the material universe is usually regular and predictable [the rain fall equally upon the good and the wicked], subject the occasional unpredictable human action or divine intervention {miracles]. On the other hand, hardcore scientism is based on blind, nihilistic faith without any empirical or rational basis whatsoever and which fails to produce any meaningful or useful output or serve any useful purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-51242688641855879722007-04-30T21:02:00.000-07:002007-04-30T21:02:00.000-07:00Mark,I think the fellow on CSPAN actually said wha...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I think the fellow on CSPAN actually said what you said about evangelical Christianity being an "opiate." I'm sure he'd be in complete agreement with Herr Marx.<BR/><BR/>Sad that this is what goes by the name of "intellectual discourse" in so many of our institutions of higher learning. <BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-5457523222486217452007-04-30T16:40:00.000-07:002007-04-30T16:40:00.000-07:00The screed about "dimwitted" Sam's Club employees ...The screed about "dimwitted" Sam's Club employees is a brain-dead variation on Marx's religion as opiate nonsense; the idea that Darwinism is the foundation of the sciences is a hoot; the handwringing over this country's faith-based approaches to abortion and stem cell research betray's a deeply impolitic eurocentrism ( a bit of baggage that no self-respecting, secular pluralist wants to cart around ); finally, if religiously informed opinion ought to be excluded from all discussions of public policy, then we should declare the advances made over the past 50 years in civil rights, null and void ( let's not even mention a national charter invoking a "creator" as the source of all "inalienable rights" ).<BR/><BR/><BR/>-MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-62689456216257231132007-04-29T19:38:00.000-07:002007-04-29T19:38:00.000-07:00"...the foundation of modern science is not Darwin..."...the foundation of modern science is not Darwinism, but the belief in a rational, coherent, and orderly world that can be at least be partially dissected by the mind of man. Without this presupposition, the practice of science makes no sense."<BR/><BR/>Spot on! Not only this, but non-believers cannot account for this rational, coherent, and orderly world. At precisely the point that they acknowledge the orderliness of the world, they must do so presuming God. Borrowed capital would be another way of putting it.Jay Hershbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09252056471784663354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-31664244535037195922007-04-29T16:39:00.000-07:002007-04-29T16:39:00.000-07:00Dear Anglican Cleric:I saw the same program. I thi...Dear Anglican Cleric:<BR/><BR/>I saw the same program. I think that many educated people are genuinely afraid of democracy, because by (explicitly) including everybody in the political process, the democratic state (implicitly) allows the deepest convictions of its citizens to influence public policy. And the deepest convictions of many Americans are simply anathema to the highly educated elite who claim to value freedom, particularly as vouchsafed by democracy. <BR/><BR/>How to get out of this conundrum? Simple: you claim that those whose beliefs you anathematize are free to participate in the political process, so long as they are willing to do so in ways that ignore or even violate their own most deeply held convictions. We can tolerate believers of that stripe (John Kerry, anyone?). No matter that we are, by this logic, recommending double-mindedness and acts against conscience as democratic virtues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com