Posted by Boje on September 21, 1999 at 15:52:40:
In Reply to: The real issue posted by Robert on September 20, 1999 at 08:48:51:
Robert,
I think that you have stated your positions on the various faith vs. evidence controversies very clearly, as have rpcman and Tom.
That is my point.
You and rpcman are agnostics. You don’t accept faith as epistemologically valid.
Tom does.
Tom is a Christian. For whatever reasons he personally has, he thinks that faith is valid as a means of learning truth, because it makes sense to him that God is the source of all knowledge.
You know, as does Tom, that there is presently no means of “proving” the existence of God. Faith in God is just that – a belief that is not founded on unquestionable proof.
You prefer to base your ideologies on more certain (in your view) foundations. That is an individual preference, but not a sanction to extrapolate a conclusion that summarily denounces all faith as irrational, foolhardy, or ignorant.
Your posts have an obvious motive of accomplishing just such a purpose – at least, that is my impression of them. Denunciation of the immature faith of those who are also ignorant of sophisticated knowledge of scientific accomplishments is no more laudatory than denouncing the level of ignorance of anyone who doesn’t have faith, but is nonetheless ignorant. [If you think that that assertion is false, then I pity any of your students or subordinates.]
Tom’s posts, on the other hand, have the equally obvious motive of reconciling faith with empirically derived knowledge. I think that we all agree that such a purpose is ultimately doomed to failure, in the strict sense. If Tom truly believes in God, he will leave it to God to defend Himself – certainly He doesn’t need Tom’s help.
I think that Tom is just tired of being associated with fools, in the minds of his intellectual peers. He is understandably and admirably attempting to justify his choices by demonstrating that they are not devoid of reason.
I agree with Tom, but I also understand you and rpcman. I was once an unbeliever. Your position makes sense, if you don’t have faith (in the sense of a personal experience of realization of the existence of God).
The problem that believers, like Tom and I have with utter skeptics like you and rpcman, is simply one of antagonism. You take the logical conclusions at which you have reasonably arrived, and apply those conclusions to positions in social, academic and political viewpoints, which are not so logically clear-cut. They result, in our view, in unfair encroachments on individual freedom and self-determination, as well as ideologically skewed policies, practices, and expectations in many different areas of human interaction. [I realize that that is a really vague charge, but it is only made for the purpose of explanation – not as an opening for digression.]
That is another subject altogether, but one that points to the origin of the intensity of the debate. Of course, you know all of that already, because you experience the same controversies from your opposite perspective.
To try to tie this all together, let me reiterate my often-stated assertion that science and the Bible are indeed compatible. The apparent inconsistencies and disagreements lie within the realm of the unexplained. Period.
If you insist upon labeling believers who attempt such intellectual reconciliation with such derogatory terminology as “apologists”, “fundamentalist whackos”, “religious fanatics”, or one of any number of other intentionally inflammatory designations, then you are certainly deserving of accusations of insincerity, at the very least.
Boje