tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6432061228339020088..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Advent and the Modern MindFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13198038814047945192009-12-26T23:36:22.453-05:002009-12-26T23:36:22.453-05:00Interesting thought on how you foresee the directi...Interesting thought on how you foresee the direction of Evangelicalism. I heard an Evangelical sermon recently wherein the pastor declaimed being "relevant" to culture not because he had come to distrust relevance as a creed but because "if you are relevant then that means that someone else got there first." <br /><br />This sermon, representative of what I perceive to be the direction of Evangelicalism, suggests that relevance is becoming irrelevant in favor of values like creativity, uniqueness, identity (vague though they be).Matthew Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10525796012817639992009-12-24T15:56:22.128-05:002009-12-24T15:56:22.128-05:00Yet there is a whole new group of thought out ther...Yet there is a whole new group of thought out there. Post-Modern thought, which is starting to take hold (and will become the dominant thought in the next century). As Christians, we must add to this, or else risk being left behind by the culture. This may be good or bad. If we are left behind, then another generation down the line can come along and offer something "new", while all the time offering something "old" (what we see as traditional Christian beliefs).<br /><br />Incidentally, Evangelicals and Charismatics are re-discovering the liturgy and the faith of the past. Given another 20-30 years, I believe they will be ready to approach the more Catholic forms of faith on common ground. Catholic ground, as opposed to Protestant ground.<br /><br />Post-Modernists want to make church relevant to the society at large. I believe we need to do that, AS WELL AS make society relevant to traditional Christian faith. We have to "seize the day" or risk loosing it all together.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49694948665453676472009-12-24T08:29:55.866-05:002009-12-24T08:29:55.866-05:00From the Roman perspective:
A very well written a...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />A very well written and thoughtful article. In my experience, the misuse of science as a substitute for God and religion produces bitter and inedible fruits. The end product is always neither science or religion.<br /><br />It's a well documented fact that such misuse (and twentieth century abounds in such examples) almost immediately degenerates from extravagant promises and hopes to utilitarianism, severe devaluation of our humanity, widespread misery, and death for many. <br /><br />The "modern mind", in my view, resists evaluation of its own works with respect to this traditional moral framework, yet, it illogically assumes that the fruits of this framework will somehow continue to be produced (as David Bentely Hart so ably pointed out in his book "Atheist Delusions"). It also finds it delightful when Christians themselves fail to uphold this moral framework.<br /><br />"Modernity" is a bitter way to live. We must hold fast to God, be thankful that He granted us the capacity to be humane with each other, and do penance for our failures. <br /><br />On this Christmas eve A.D. 2009 - Merry Christmas!Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54118713870280780302009-12-23T22:49:34.123-05:002009-12-23T22:49:34.123-05:00You miss my point, which is simply that faith, whi...You miss my point, which is simply that faith, which is God-given, is at the root of all knowledge. I know that I exist because God has brought that knowledge to me. Without that divine gift there would be no other knowledge. In order to have any knowledge, one must begin with the knowledge of one's own existence, anf then with one's ability to observe, and so forth. My point is that none of those assumptions is logically inescapable. It all begins with faith, and, without faith there can be no science.<br /><br />I intended no more than this basic thought to be derived from this reasoning, and intended only to support what Fr. Smith had to say about the primacy of faith in what is not seen yet shall surely be.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37276906607681932902009-12-23T20:04:10.376-05:002009-12-23T20:04:10.376-05:00Hello Poetreader!
I enjoyed reading your oped on...Hello Poetreader! <br /><br />I enjoyed reading your oped on knowledge and belief. I have just have a few questions.<br /><br />"One must believe, in the first place, that one is."<br /><br />So our starting point is: I believe that I am or I exist. Why is that? <br /><br />After all, you said that the "deeper we look into the nature of things, the less "there" is actually to be found there." <br /><br />Might this generate some scepticism as to our existence? We may naively assume that we exist, but when we look into it in more detail - if we are unsure whether things exist "there" - how do we know whether things or even ourselves exist at all? Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle...<br /><br />All this uncertainty about "there" could also challenge our dogmatic assumption that "one must believe in the accuracy of one's own observation". Perhaps we don't see the world as it really <b>is</b> at all? Perhaps our "eye of faith" just sees our own ideas of the world?<br /><br />Our reason may be founded on belief or idea - perhaps it's the wrong belief? After all, if we do accept the Copenhagen interpretation then can we claim that there a boundary between existence and non-existence? What "exists there" as truth now may not exist there as truth tomorrow. No wonder science worshipers cling to what can be "proven" today - it's all they've got! Perhaps our fleeting "beliefs" are just anthropomorphic arrogance! <br /><br />I don't mean to dampen your enthuasiasm Poetreader, but we really must be very careful when making statements about knowledge, especially to justify our faith. I have seen many Christian arguments using Quantum Mechanics backfire spectacularly.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10665499681219616912009-12-23T17:17:52.247-05:002009-12-23T17:17:52.247-05:00You know, all reason is founded on belief. In ord...You know, all reason is founded on belief. In order to reason one must believe that observation is possible, that what holds true at this moment held true in a past moment and will hold true in the future. One must believe in the accuracy of one's own observation and in the consistency of one's own thinking. One must believe, in the first place, that one is. Expecially in this age of quantum physics we find that the deeper we look into the nature of things, the less "there" is actually to be found there. worshipers of "science" tend to assume that only what can be proven is to be accepted as real. The eye of faith, on the other hand, knows that every aspect of reality is ultimately grounded in what cannot be proven. Without faith there can be no science.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.com