(ctd)

>> to some extent theologists have made a virtue out of necessity in raising these aspects to be central dogmas. Similarly, science, in its attachment to the centrality of empiricism has to a large extent ignored those aspects or written them off as irrelevant subjective or ignorant misexplanations. <<

In principle I agree: there are “axioms” (basic beliefs, or dogmas as you call them) that a given religious belief system - e.g. that of Christianity - is built on, as there are “axioms” on which a given scientific theory (notably in physics) can be presented as being built on [You can axiomatically build SRT on the assumption that spacetime is modelled on the Minkowski space, or the GRT by assuming that it is modelled on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (plus other assumptions)].

There is a philosophically naive approach to both religion/theology and science/physics which sees these assumptions as “truths”, dogmas if you like, verbatim "given by God" or having been “scientifically proven” respectively.

I think theology has “significantly failed” only as far as it has seen its belief system, and what can be deduced from it, amenable to empirical (scientific) verifications. The same as - I believe - science will fail when it tries to answer questions that in many cultures belonged to the realm of religion for millennia.

The difference is that (Christian) theology was acting as ersatz-science for centuries (and is still in some extreme cases) whereas attempts by some atheists to use science as a kind of ersatz-religion are relatively recent.

I also find Gould’s "Nonoverlapping magisteria" unsatisfactory.

>> It is also why empirically-defined rationalism has not managed to provide a metaphysically satisfactory explanatory replacement for atheists, despite enormous efforts to do so in philosophy.

I really appreciate this, although I would stress that most thinking Christians do not start with their religion providing them a “metaphysically satisfactory explanation” but rather seek this explanation after “embracing faith”, c.f. Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum.

I really appreciate this opportunity to learn from your views on these things.

George and Craig,
Can I remind you both that Christianity is an historical religion. Not that it exists in history but that it finds its foundation in history, in human experience. This means that it is empirical. As Israel experienced and meditated on that experience so did the disciples and the subsequent writers of the NT. Thus Christianity was not invented out of nothing, as it were, but evolved from human experience. Dogma arose out of an analysis of that experience. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, arose out of the need to systematise the experience of Jesus, the truth of his life, his historical being and that strongly felt experience of his continuing presence.

John J,
I do not understand why you get so upset! If my material displeases you so much save yourself from pain and stop reading it. I would be grateful for the absence of your posts.

Sells,

I agree but do not see how this contradicts what I wrote, except for the use of the term “empirical” which in empiricist philosophy is not meant to mean “evolved from human experience”, which can be said about many products of human creative, intellectual or spiritual activity.

Is what's being described in this article emitting from Marks and Freud and others otherwise known as bulverism? The concept is explained as follows -

"The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth [and Twenty-First] Century."

–C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism,” in God in the Dock, p. 273

Sells, I like what you said in the article about 'trust'. You've highlighted a disconcerting trend in current society.

Jon J,
You seem jealous that Peter's 'drivel' gets a lot of space here on this website. However, I don't think it's because of his religious credentials. I'm not sure what these are. He's described here as a deacon. That could mean anything. It probably doesn't mean he's in the full time employ of the church. He's described as working in science. Maybe his training was in this domain, but I'm only guessing.

Have you ever attempted submitting something of your own here, and possibly had it knocked back? If so, I can sympathise. I sometimes have scratched my head trying to decipher the editorial policies. But it can't be denied that Peter's articles have got a lot of response over the years. Bums on seats, or whatever is the metaphorical equivalent, I think, here counts for quite a lot. These articles, from what I understand, are coming from a self confessed rebel in the church ranks (correct me if I'm wrong). He seems to me to be often aiming for controversy. The ability to stir the pot, or ruffle some feathers, touch a nerve, or some other emotion may be all that's required.

Though the website isn't always going to get it right in what it considers 'rational' or 'logical', it's often fairly open minded. And that's better than most.

Hi Peter,
I agree entirely with your comment vis a vis Christianity's (and I think it's as readily applied to all religious models) basis in empirical observation. The thing is that the core dogma relating to divinity represents an abrogation of empiricism and that is why it has had so much trouble meeting science in the middle over the years, although it must be said that especially in the Catholic church that is changing rapidly, with Teilhard's ideas at last receiving the attention they deserve.

I'm very much a lapsed Anglican and out of touch with the doings of the church, is the same type of theological reformation occurring in the Church of England?

I saw a very interesting interview with the Dalai Lama some time ago about the role of empiricism in Buddhism, in which he made the point that in his view Buddhism is in some ways closer to a science than a religion. I have looked for it online, but I can't put my hands on it. Perhaps someone else might know of it?

Dan, thanks for introducing me to Bulverism, I hadn't come across that delightful perversity before. It's incredibly resonant with a lot of what passes for public "debate" though.