Greetings. In a bit of a break from deep musings, Glasgow friend Greg has asked me if I can publicise an exciting event coming up in October, a ceilidh featuring his legendary band The Jiggers. Friday 10th October, 7.30pm, Destiny Centre, Shawlands, Glasgow. No problem Greg.
The Big Jig and A promo by the Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppets. (it wasn't my idea)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
11 comments:
intersting article by stephen "the voice" hawking :
http://www.hawking.org.uk/
lectures/dice.html
easy enough read - whats the latest in the capital of the curryhouse ?
'the living reality of the grand hypotheis of theism - shimmering like a house of cards on a stack of methods - fragile as life itself'.
That was a nice phrase of yours from near the end of the Olympic thread Rob - which I've finally just now finished. So I'll tell you when I've read the Hawking. And also about the latest from the mecca of the madras - (basically good).
I found the hawkins article quite interesting - it touches on the scope of scientific knowledge - it sort of gives the picture of a star of the knowledge sitting in an circle of unknowableness....
Been reading a book which is a zen interpretation of jesus - its quite good as the writer is not launching in with his pet historical view of jesus but is saying more this is what the gospels say and then telling you what the text says to him...
He talks about the language of paradox and the limits of logic - he quotes Camus - you must remember him - didnt you read him in french ? He says "a man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them. One has to pay something"
Rob intersting article by stephen "the voice" hawking :
Conclusion: "God still has a few tricks up his sleeve"
I wonder why an atheist talks this way?
The universe still has a few tricks up it's sleeve it is true enough.
Good stuff though, so thanks for sharing.
Lee
I wonder why an atheist talks this way?
I have wondered...
Perhaps he is using the term poetically rather than objectively.
Not everyone who talks about god is guilty of reification :)
Read this article the other day
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html
it might interest you - think one of the problems when people with a science background approach religious language is that they might simply objectify it.
Finally started Polkinghornes book "belief in god in an age of science" - haven't read anything by him before - must confess to being quite impressed - he's very well - but still he still seems to me at least to come across as a concise and creative writer.
His chapter on does god act in the physical world is really quite bold - im going to read it again - and thats a rare thing for me !
I found an article online by him on reductionism if anyone is interested:
http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/104.asp
Finally started Polkinghornes book "belief in god in an age of science"
Never read anything from the man - but I have listened to a few talks/lectures from him.
I honestly cannot work him out - understands the Big Bang, accepts evolution... so how does this fit in with the God of the bible? He never explains, just accepts.
Maybe the book explains this leap - if it does, please quote some of his reasoning.
Thanks
Lee
just read Peter Phans essay "the wisdom of holy fools in postmodernity" - reflects something of what i was saying in the last debate with billy - it seems to absolve me from from originality if nothing elses - I quote the last 2 paragraphs -
If behind issues of truth lurks, as postmodernists claim, nothing but will-to-power, manipulation, domination, and rhetoric, and therefore all truth-claims, especially as embodied in metanarratives, must be unmasked for what they are by means of suspicion and distrust, then foolish wisdom animated by selfless and non-manipulative love is the way to counter the will-to-knowledge as the will-to-power with the will-to-knowledge as the will-to-love. Or, to put it in Rahner's words, it must be shown that love, not power, is the light of knowledge. As Anthony C. Thiselton puts it, "a love in which a self genuinely gives itself to the Other in the interests of the Other dissolves the acids of suspicion and deception." (53)
In Christian terms, foolish wisdom animated by love is realized in a paradigmatic way in Jesus' death on the cross. It was in his total self-emptying love and utter powerlessness on the cross that Jesus destroyed the powers dividing humanity from divinity and Jews from Gentiles, and revealed God as all-embracing Love calling us to love God and to love one another as God has loved us. Without love, and hence holiness, foolishness is just foolishness, and wisdom mere inflated knowledge. Ultimately, foolish wisdom is a gift, a revelation received in humility of mind and simplicity of heart. (54) Only then it has the power to convince and transform, more effectively than the sword and rhetoric. It is no accident that Saint Francis of Assisi, a prototype of foolish wisdom, who regarded himself as a frater minor, a fool deserving nothing but contempt and dishonor, is also celebrated for his tender love for God and for God's creatures, big and small. (55)
lee
I've read a little more of polkinhorne now - i dont really get him as a simple accepter of other peoples ideas - he seems to me to be quite a soft and playful beast - very english and very comfortable inside his own intellectual and cultural tradition.
He does to me come across as very well read and very capable of quickly summing together other peoples work. I don't see him as an answers man - much more a work in progress - but I can quite see how he would seem evasive - even when he disagress with people they don't see to notice.
But on some things he is very forthcoming - he seems quite confident to present a picture of how god could act in the world - a hotpotch of quantum and open choas theory. He shows something in the natural sciences which he thinks could be labelled - as an intervening god. His god it seems has arms at least.
But this i suppose even in his own view is work in progress - but he is keen to forcefully distance himself from a mechanistic and Lapacian view of the universe as something which is fated and fixed to evolve in a predictable and unvarying pattern. This i suppose was the dominant scientific view before the 2nd world war - and still lingers around in popular thought.
The funny thing is it was the dominant scientific view and now it is not - polkinhorne i suppose is used to these sea changes in theology and physics and is wary of pinning any theory to close to any new development in either. He seems to have had quite a good and english experience of religion so to him its not something to be ousted as a scourge of mankind.
What I get from him is a sense of stability - our descriptions and understanding of the world is faulty - but we might as well play with the ideas we have - I think one the thing which makes him a christian thinker is he doesn't want to commit at least what he would see as cultural suicide in the process.
i would file him as "well fed" and at an imaginary dinner party ? I would probably sit him next to Socrates - just to see how much of his theory he would let go of under questioning...
Thanks.
From how he talks, he uses one logic for science - another for his religion.
He's a clever chap, and I believe a vicar? It is a strange mix
Lee
Post a Comment