I'm using a voice
recognition program instead of typing and have to use it outside my
new E-Mail program and transfer it across. I'll get it right. On the other
hand if I can get a little cowing from it . . .
. ?
Good to hear you at last Harry,
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 8:53
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious
universe
Ed,
You saw the wonder of the sky and reacted to it. However, the sky had
no wonder - the wonder was in you. Later you saw the sky through a
telescope, and read or heard people who looked through telescopes
and transmitted their wonder to you.
So, we find out more and more about things and some of the
knowledge may be true. Yet, in the case of the Almighty, what do we know
about him that we didn't know yesterday, or last year, or a millennium or two
ago?
I am not an atheist, nor am I in denial. I suspect they are words made
up to categorize those who wonder about the wondering. Rather like the
opponents of Global Warming being labeled dissidents ("people who dissent from
some established policy").
There is simply nothing that leads me to believe that God exists. There
is nothing I would like better when the great cold creeps around my bones than
to wake up and have a cup of tea with Gwen. But, unfortunately it won't
happen.
Does God exist? Could be but I have seen nothing to suggest it. (Even
though on the screen at the moment an Episcopal Minister is telling us what
God said about homosexuality.)
You said: "I think that respect for mystery and compassion for all living
things are the essence of religion. In my books, even if one denies
having a religion but is doing those things, one is being
religious."
Touché!
I'm using a voice
recognition program instead of typing and have to use it outside my
new E-Mail program and transfer it across. I'll get it right. On the
other hand if I can get a little cowing from it . .
. . ?
Harry
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:49
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious
universe
Ed,
Very
good.
Merton makes some points. You say:
"He argues,
further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two different
ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of the atheist -
there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in rational
terms."
Perhaps, the problem lies in the
strength of the definition. "Denial is the approach of the atheist . . . "
Why denial? Why not a reaction of mild
-- or even strong -- interest in what may be - or perhaps it might be a fun
interest, an entertainment interest, in endless (though not always too fruitful) discussion.
I would guess that as one
moves further away from absolute denial and into curiousity one moves away
from atheism.
Of course we want to believe there is
something "immense, eternal and purposeful" out there. Perhaps a God,
perhaps an extraordinarily advanced alien civilization. But is such thinking
of primary importance?
As I said to Keith, we know no more now
than we did yesterday, or last week, or a century ago, about the speculative
mysteries that certainly lie out
there. So, why keep talking about them -- except for
entertainment.
Because, Harry, we live
now, not a century ago or even yesterday. It's our turn to think and
talk about them and thinking has to be continuous - perhaps for no better
reason than entertaining oneself.
Merton's statement is intended to
separate two classes of people, which is all right, but perhaps simplistic.
Why cannot one adopt the view that there is so little evidence one way or
the other, that
combined with a certain difficulty in finding more
evidence, leads to the conclusion that
discussion of this subject is not too profitable?
I don't think we can help
ourselves. I remember as a kid in deepest, darkest Saskatchewan lying
outside in the summer night and looking up at the sky full of stars and
wondering what was out there. Then, before I went to bed, I would read
Buck Rogers comics to find out.
You define the components of
religion.
Yet, can one not have a respect
for mystery and compassion for all living things without being
religious? Or, does such respect for mystery
and compassion for all living things define you.
I think that respect for mystery and compassion for
all living things are the essence of religion. In my books, even if
one denies having a religion but is doing those things, one is being
religious.
Perhaps your quote indicates the difficulty of suggesting that God is
no more than fantasy. God betrays
no "trace of his presence". You note how convenient this is. God is proven
to exist by virtue of his absence.
I rarely indulge in this kind of
discussion. I don't want to tread on tender sensitivities. But FW
contributors are a stronger breed, which is why I entered the
fray.
Anyway, you're always interesting which
is why I'm inclined to poke you a
little.
Harry
Well, by betraying no
trace, God keeps us guessing and lets us think all kinds of things. We
can either rise and face the mystery of being or we can particularize
God and lob Him at each other in the pretence that my God is
stronger than your God, etc. Just think, if there were no God, we
would have to invent Him.
BTW Harry, your writing is
getting very large. I can think of two explanations for that: You may
be having trouble seeing, which I do hope is not the case, or you may be
trying to overpower us with the enormity of your arguments.
Personally, I do feel a little cowed.
Best regards,
Ed
From: Ed Weick
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:58
AM
To: Harry Pollard; 'Keith Hudson';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Our
mysterious universe
OK, here's my take on
it. It's something I posted to a friend recently:
Ken, one of my reference
points on this kind of thing is Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk,
who argued that people have to approach the mystery of their being by using
both rationality and faith. As ever so many great scientific minds
have demonstrated, rational thought and science can give us an enormous
amount of information about the universe and our place in it. However,
there will always be a boundary between what we can explain and understand
and what we can't, and we really have no way of knowing whether we have
explained much about the state of our reality or just a tiny bit of
it. So, Merton argues, there is a boundary and, no matter how far we
push out into the unknown, there always will be. He argues, further,
that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two different ways,
either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of the atheist -
there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in rational
terms. Faith is a little harder to explain.
The fundamentalist has faith, but his faith is very close to the
approach of the atheist in that he defines and delineates what lies beyond
the boundary and therefore excludes mystery. Even though I'm a deacon
in a Baptist church, my own preference and path is agnosticism. I want
to believe that there is something immense, eternal and purposeful beyond
the boundary, but of course I cannot know.
Personally, I think that
the two most important components of religion are respect for
mystery and compassion for all living beings that share the mystery with
us. A book I read while in the slums of Sao Paulo a few years ago puts
it this way:
... in a creative
universe God would betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would
be to rob the creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the
active pursuit of answers to mere supplication of God. And so it is: God’s
language is silence. The Old Testament suggests that God fell silent in
response to the request of the terrified believers who said to Moses,
"Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest
we die." Whatever the reason, God ceases speaking with the book of Job,
and soon stops intervening in human affairs generally, leading Gideon to
ask, "If the Lord be with us, why then . . . where be all his miracles
which our fathers told us of?" The author of the Twenty-second Psalm cries
ruefully, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Whether he left or was
ever here I do not know, and don’t believe we ever shall know. But one can
learn to live with ambiguity — that much is requisite to the seeking
spirit — and with the silence of the stars. All who genuinely seek to
learn, whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic, are united in
having not a faith but faith itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to
respect the eloquence of silence. For God’s hand may be a human hand, if
you reach out in loving kindness, and God’s voice your voice, if you but
speak the truth. (Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang, Simon &
Schuster, 1997,
p.312)
Hope this helps.
Ed
P.S.: Merton met
his end in a most ironic of possible ways. He was electrocuted while
plugging in an appliance in a hotel room. A great and powerful mind
overcome by a toaster. Try to explain that!
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:48
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious
universe
Keith,
I'm probably a lot closer to finding
out the truth than you are -- even with your emphysema. Yet, I find no
evidence at all for support of the myth, any myth. Even one to guide me,
whatever that may mean.
All my life I have enjoyed speculation
on the universe, and what it
may mean, if it means anything. But, always it is for entertainment
purposes and doesn't lead to much that
is important.
The major problem in discussions of
this sort is that you cannot
argue with faith. Faith requires no logical support, no significant
evidence, nothing.
The universe is in a period of
transition from what and to what nobody knows. When we are in this
transition nobody knows and we are unlikely to find out. This transition
will take 1000 generations, or one million generations, of human beings. How can we take a
snapshot of what is now and extrapolate in all directions with any
sense?
So, enjoy your myths, as without doubt
you will. Just remember they
are myths.
Harry
|
