V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/12/85)
<<>> Looks like Sean McLinden takes the mantle of "Rosen Baiter" from me. Those last exchanges had all of the subtlty of an air strike from SAC. I'm probably going to get it from both of them trying to interpret both positions WITHOUT the articles infront of me....but here goes..academia isn't reality anyway so much of this harmless anyway... :-) Rich usually harps on scientific proof from the religionist position. IF we could PROVE God existed by repeatable experiment..(Ken Arndt's hot line?) then God would be proven to be only a phenomenon and not a living being. I know of no way to prove the existence of a living being except by direct observation. I can INFER the existence of a living being by examining physical evidence of their passing. E.g. a sensor that measures ammonia which is a waste product of humans and horses. So if I know there are NO horses in an area and I know there is no fertilizer or industry around which might give off ammonia then I can be preaty sure that a human is around. (then I call in the air strikes!!! :-) ) I can infer the existence of God by metaphysical arguments and by pointing to physical evidence that would be MORE easily explained if God were the cause of the evidence. This is done in scientific theory too were one ACCEPTS the SIMPLEST explanation of the facts as long as it consistently explains the facts . As I remember my course work in science two theories are equivalent if BOTH explain the facts. The preferred one is the simpler. BOTH are considered correct until discrepencies arise. SO MUCH FOR ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG IN SCIENCE. So how can the religionist prove "scientifically" that God exists to the satisfaction of the skeptic? We need metaphysical proof. Which is defined to be IRRELAVENT or non-existant by the ones we are trying to prove the existance of God to. What about authority? I doubt that ANYONE ever tries to prove everything, here Sean is correct. We EXTRAPOLATE generalites on humanity by ASSUMING that all humans are essentially the same and after a large sample of observations we draw universal statements. Parents raise children and teachers instruct their charges all with the authority of the superior established. CONSTANT skepticism on the part of the subordinant makes the instruction impossible!!! Rich makes a good point that authority functions best when the subordinate party is able to understand the reasons behind the rules but it in no reduces the authority. Catholicism DOES NOT require BLIND faith on the part of the faithful. All the explanation in the world is available to the faithful (and outsiders for that matter). If the faithful do not understand they are still bound however. The problem of conscience. BOTH, I think, are affirming the importance of conscience. Most Christians can accept that, I think. However there is a large body of literature on how a proper conscience is formed!!! How one forms a proper conscience is a topic of another article. But I'll give you a hint..authority IS involved. What it comes down to is that the authority of God overrides the authority of the individual and his conscience. However a well formed conscience will in fact BE in harmony with God so that there is no override necessary. An obedient Christian usually has no problem with this. The atheist defines the problem away and forms his conscience by observation of the world, hopefully using the natural law. The middle ground Christian, especially one in todays eduacational systems which expound the perfectability of man, constantly struggles with his conscience, good, evil, the world and the position of his denomination. marchionni