Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evolving Religions and the Via Negativa Message-ID: <301@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 12:48:20 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.301 Posted: Tue Jun 18 12:48:20 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 20:36:49 EDT References: <195@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1100@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 67 In article <1100@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>How do we define natural? What are the limits of what is natural? >>>Where are the boundaries between "natural" and "supernatural"? >>>Are they anything more than arbitrary demarcations that facilitate >>>the conclusions we want to draw about the universe and about the >>>nature of the supernatural? Charley is not >>>alone is not having answered these questions. [ROSEN] >> That's just the point. They aren't answerable. It should be clear >> that any definition of "supernatural" is essentially negative in >> content; the supernatural is that which exists, but not in the way >> nature does. I would take nature to be that which we know the >> quality of existence of: matter, energy, ideas, emotions, music. >"That which we know [of]". Thanks for making it very clear that you too >believe that the definition of supernatural is based on the limits of human >observation. Which change with every significant scientific advance (like >microscopes). With that in mind, what are you complaining about? My whole >point has been that certain people (yourself included) claim to "know" >(i.e., presume) >a lot about that which is beyond "that which we know of". Do they >really have this knowledge, or are they engaging in wishful thinking? Their is an obvious difference between things that we know of and the QUALITY OF EXISTENCE of the things that we know of. You are making the assumption that everything exists in ways that parallel known existence; in particular, you assume that we can know the quality of existence of anything. Very, well, if you are going to make this assumption, defend it. >> Adhering to this principle [of negative knowledge], >> then, to say that God is supernatural is to say >> that he exists, in a manner totally unlike that of natural things; indeed, >> this doctrine holds that to say that "God exists in a manner" is already >> wrong. I ascribe to this doctrine, and I think that the Bible is not in >> conflict with it. As I see it, the boundary between the supernatural and >> nature is drawn quite precisely at the limits of knowability, which >> limits I don't believe are themselves knowable. >> >> Obviously I don't expect you to accept this sort of deity, Rich, >> because the doctrine I cite say explicitly that you cannot analyze >> the attributes of God in any positive way; i.e., you cannot verify >> their existence precisely because you can't make even a subjective >> statement of what the attribute is like in any positive terms. >And yet YOU have. You have very specific ideas about what this god is >and what >it does and what it expects. Given that you've admitted that you can't know >any of that, why are you claiming knowledge of those things? Is what you >believe really "knowledge" or just what you'd like to believe? One can claim knowledge of what something DOES without being able to know what it is like; after all, this is a fundamental principle of science. And you've fallen into a classical fallacy: that, since we can't say anything positive about God, we can't say anything at all. This was debunked back in the middle ages by Maimonides. We can say plenty about God, because we can talk at length about what he is NOT. That is why I said that to say that "God exists in a manner" is wrong. To say that GOd has purpose is to say that he is not random, or inconsistent, or half a dozen other attributes. More importantly, I find that you are (once again) not arguing for your own beliefs, but for agnosticism. It is, after all, a fallacy to say that, because you cannot prove one side to be right, that it is therefore wrong. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe P.S.: The White Queen had a lot to say about running rings around people.