I am an evangelical Christian in the middle of reading your book “Belief of God in an age of science”. To put in mild terms - I am thoroughly enjoying it. Thank you so much for writing it. Beautiful.
I was also thinking of the possibility of a connection between quantum physics and our daily prayer. Also can the transfiguration account being classified as a atemporal event? Thoughts to ponder.
Additionally can all human knowledge be broken down to Truth vs Falsehood meaning a Yes or No classification ...this would tie into a neat dichotomy between good vs evil...
Thank you. You might also want to look at Questions of Truth.
Everything is connected at a metaphorical and metaphysical level. And dynamical systems theory – rather than quantum physics per se – helps us understand that significant effects can follow when many actors in a system align their actions and intentions, since this is a major purpose of prayer in trying to align our will to God’s. I think it is John Lucas who says that one great thing about petitionary prayer is that it forces us to think about what we really want and whether we ought to be wanting it.
The Transfiguration is not so much "atemporal" as an event when time touches eternity in an even deeper sense.
In respect of your final question: Certainly not! Almost everything important has to be expressed in some form of paradox. This is one reason why there are two creation accounts in Genesis, which differ in detail, and why the 2 genealogies of Jesus are different.
Showing posts with label Knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Knowledge. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Nature of Knowledge
I have recently encountered an interview with you conducted by Krista Tippett, which appeared in her book, Einstein's God. The interview raised quite a few provocative questions in my mind, and I beg for the liberty to share one of them with you:
I know, with something approaching absolute certainty, that, if A > B, and B > C, then A > C. I also know, with the same certainty, that, if I substitute a "<" or an "=" sign for the ">", the same kind of relationship holds. But what is the nature of my knowledge? I have, after all, only examined a very small percentage of the possible a's, b's, and c's in the universe, and none of them very scientifically. So is my knowledge of logical relationships different, in any fundamental way, from mystical insight?
When I was much younger, I was quite impressed for a time by the writings of Ayn Rand, who draws a very sharp dichotomy between rationality and mysticism. But, when I examine the nature of rationality itself, the distinction seems to vanish. I would be quite interested in your thoughts on the matter, and would be most grateful for any guidance you might give to my perplexity.
NB Response: Our knowledge of mathematical truths that can be logically proven is in a sense the only “certain” knowledge and does not depend on an examination of instances, but on the consequences of axioms. And of course if you substitute “is within 1 mile of” for > the deduction does not hold.
However mathematics does show us is that:
a. Not all truths are empirical
b. Not everything that is true can be proven.
I know, with something approaching absolute certainty, that, if A > B, and B > C, then A > C. I also know, with the same certainty, that, if I substitute a "<" or an "=" sign for the ">", the same kind of relationship holds. But what is the nature of my knowledge? I have, after all, only examined a very small percentage of the possible a's, b's, and c's in the universe, and none of them very scientifically. So is my knowledge of logical relationships different, in any fundamental way, from mystical insight?
When I was much younger, I was quite impressed for a time by the writings of Ayn Rand, who draws a very sharp dichotomy between rationality and mysticism. But, when I examine the nature of rationality itself, the distinction seems to vanish. I would be quite interested in your thoughts on the matter, and would be most grateful for any guidance you might give to my perplexity.
NB Response: Our knowledge of mathematical truths that can be logically proven is in a sense the only “certain” knowledge and does not depend on an examination of instances, but on the consequences of axioms. And of course if you substitute “is within 1 mile of” for > the deduction does not hold.
However mathematics does show us is that:
a. Not all truths are empirical
b. Not everything that is true can be proven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)