<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Thanks, Randy. Now I remember why I liked the book so much, and Connie and
Michael's course.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jann</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/10/2013 3:10:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rcwmbw@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><BR><BR>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: #000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Friends,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">I'm fresh off having finished Dowd's book. Like most
writers on this subject these days, from my perspective he gets a lot of it
right, a lot of it wrong, ignores a lot of what I consider pertinent, and
overall raises some very good questions to ponder. I have no interest
in, nor basis for, defending Dowd, but here are some of his points that
particularly resonated with me.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">For one, David, I believe
he does exactly what you suggest in your last statement, he reconciles the
conflict between religious faith and scientific knowledge. It is no
particular leap for me to say, for example, that the story of creation is
stated in one genre in the Bible (which Dowd would call "night language") and
another way scientifically (which he would call "day language"), the latter
expressed with the word "evolution," but that both are talking about the same
reality. I personally prefer words like "emergence" or "unfolding" in
place of evolution but believe they are pointing to same
thing. And a key part of his message is that what
all this points to is still going on and forever will be. I harken
to the words in Revelation, "Behold, I make all things new," present tense
with future implied.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Another, I have no difficulty with Dowd's calling God
"Ultimate Reality" and find that not too far from Tillich's "ground of
being." Both insist that God is not one reality or one being among
others, but the basis, foundation, context, etc. for all. And the
faith question in relation to that ultimate groundedness is not, "What do
you believe?" but rather "What do you trust to the point that are you
willing to stake your life on it?"</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Jack, to your point about rationalizing away mystery, my
reading of Dowd (perhaps because this is what I want him to say) is that once
you have explained scientifically how something in the religious
arena works or happens, that need not take the mystery out of
it. My example--child birth. I have a layman's knowledge of how
this happens scientifically, but it is no less mysterious and awe-filling
each time it occurs. I could say the same about death. Hence
in his talk about "public" and "private" revelation and
about rational, factual language and about mythical,
metaphorical language, the use of one does not cancel out the need for
the other. While I am not as ready as he appears to be to discount
the role and impact of scripture and tradition as being obsolete,
my Wesleyan heritage puts me right with him in affirming
that revelation is sourced not only through
scripture and tradition but also through reason and
experience. One of the ideas he pushes at hard is that God's evolutional,
revelatory, creative activity did not stop and the end of the sixth day
in Genesis or the day the last writer of the New Testament, or some other
wisdom literature, put down his pen.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Other points that caught my attention: that
emergence happens through us in partnership with God; service to the
Whole a big part of what we would call profound humanness;
the dominant metaphor is changing from a mechanical to a nested,
networked world, etc. etc. etc.<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Thanks, Herman, for prompting this conversation (again)
and to all who are participating in it.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Randy</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"><BR style="RIGHT: auto"></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto" dir=ltr>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B>
"jlepps@pc.jaring.my" <jlepps@pc.jaring.my><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Order Ecumenical Community
<oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:19
PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Oe List ...]
A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society"<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=y_msg_container><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1230005655>
<DIV>How could I stay out of this conversation???<BR><BR>There are at least
three essays in my forthcoming book that address this issue. 2 are reviews of
naive "theological" statements by Steven Hawking, and one is an essay on
Faith. The latter is particularly pertinent here, since much of the
controversy is about mis-understanding of language. Briefly, Faith seeks
understanding, Faith seeks action, and Faith seeks expression. It's the
expressions of faith that are sometimes confused with understandings of faith,
and this leads to grossly flawed (and "unscientific") beliefs. It's as if one
were to take Humpty Dumpty as a historical account rather than a mythological
statement of profound truth!<BR><BR>Anyway the book is called "The Theology of
Surprise: Exploring Life's Mysteries." It should be out around the first of
August through Resurgence Publishing. Should be available through Amazon
soon.<BR><BR>John<BR><BR>At 04:19 PM 7/9/2013, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=yiv1230005655cite cite="" type="cite">On Jul 9, 2013, at
3:49 PM, Herman Greene <<A title=mailto:hfgreenenc@gmail.com href="mailto:hfgreenenc@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:hfgreenenc@gmail.com">hfgreenenc@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=yiv1230005655cite cite="" type="cite">Now this is an
incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some
positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am
a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See
<BR><BR>
<H3><B><A title=http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin href="http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin" rel=nofollow target=_blank>Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A
Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy
of...</A> by <A title=http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10 href="http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10" rel=nofollow target=_blank>David Ray Griffin</A> (Nov 16, 2000). In the
process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and
religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses
and logic. There are other ways of
knowing.</B></H3><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think of myself as an avid
scientist. What I believe is secondary and derivative of what I experience,
with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy, Lyn, et al. I find myself
thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I have a God
Hypothesis."<BR><BR>I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth,
and greatness in the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under
the category gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of
relationships and events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and
energizing, etc., etc.<BR><BR>My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative
of what to expect) gives me eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about
trinitarian dynamics (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been
uniformly and reliably predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life,
one might say.<BR><BR>Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask,
"What are our images of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they
give us eyes to see?" <BR><BR>I toy with images of myself as contemplative
or mystic or inveterate listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them,
really, are about constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my
hypothesis, refining my images of the way life is, and looking again, to see
if I can see more of what is there and what is real.<BR><BR>I think I'd
better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the energy is
about.<BR><BR>I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about
conflict between religious belief and scientific
knowledge.<BR><BR>David<BR><BR><BR><BR>---<BR><BR><IMG SRC="cid:X.MA1.1373487350@aol.com" alt=[] width=72 height=72 DATASIZE="19325" ID="MA1.1373487350" > <BR><BR><BR>David
Dunn<BR>740 S Alton Way 9B<BR>Denver, CO 80247<BR>720-314-5991<BR><A title=mailto:dmdunn1@gmail.com href="mailto:dmdunn1@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:dmdunn1@gmail.com">dmdunn1@gmail.com</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>OE
mailing list<BR>OE@lists.wedgeblade.net<BR><A title=http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</A>
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>OE
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net" ymailto="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</A><BR><A title=http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" target=_blank>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</A><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>OE
mailing
list<BR>OE@lists.wedgeblade.net<BR>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>