I’m not trying to be contentious here, but what support can you find for this understanding in Wright’s discriptions of the Epistemology of Love?
He applies it to the painstaking way one goes about practicing the study of history.
Can you show where Wright implies it has anything to do with making inroads into the higher kingdom?
That was more me talking there (probably) than Wright - or at least it’s my choice of words rather than his. So perhaps it remains to be seen whether I’m fairly representing his (or Baltazar’s) ideas or not. I didn’t have any particular passage of his in mind - and so can’t supply you with any. Wright didn’t really have a lot (or anything?) to say about how the mechanics of any science ought to be done or studied any differently than it currently is (which is why I’m a bit puzzled where it is that you or @klw are thinking that he is putting anything like that forward?). I was just trying to experimentally see if we could go that direction with it - and I think it’s fair to say I’ve failed to show how any scientific methodology should be different or changed as a result of Wright’s thesis. So while I briefly dabbled in the prospect of seeing if that particular ledge could be extended (or demonstrated at all!), you and klw have successfully talked me down off that ledge.
Agreed. That’s Wright’s real wheelhouse, and he spent more time on that.
Again - those are my words. Though I dare say I’m influenced quite a bit by what I just read of Wright, so maybe I could find a particular passage where he says something similar. I don’t have any particular one at hand to show though. I think it’s a fairly safe presumption that Wright (and most of us here) would all agree that those who are concerned to better know and understand truth are coming to better know both creation and the Creator as we do so. The conviction that ‘all truth is God’s truth’ is an old one - and I’m nearly certain that Wright would concur with it - would be astounded to hear that he didn’t based on all I’ve read of him by now.
And hi @Kendel . I’m not sure if this links specifically to the “epistemology of love” but I liked the image of the chalice that Wright referred to. He said that both the atheist observer and the Christian observer could, in like measure, appreciate the intricate beauty and artistry of the object. However, the Christian would know what the chalice is for . That is, for the filling with wine in a relational celebration with other believers, and in communion with God. The “love feast”.
In this way, one’s faith provides an extra layer of “meaning/purpose” to the material world. Perhaps Wright is not so much arguing that the scientific method leads one to know God, or that it ought to be done differently by Christians, but rather that one’s appreciation for the purpose and meaning behind the entirety of physical creation is enhanced once we are in a relational position (of love) with God…?
Yes - the chalice! Anybody can appreciate its beauty! But one hopes the appreciation is only deepened if one becomes immersed in the narrative of what it’s for.
Another thought occurred to me here too with regard to my own stumbling around about Wright and science. Perhaps it could also be likened to “how is a Christian accountant different than any of her non-believing colleagues?” Does the practice of accounting change for one if they become a believer? Debits are still debits, credits still credits - and arithmetic all still functions the same. So perhaps the only place we might begin to see a distinction is that the believer has an overlaying imperative to “do right by their neighbor” - (whether their neighbor be a client or anybody else). And perhaps the believer now has some extra moral imperative to critique some things, such as predatory interest rates or other rapacious properties of our economic system - but, interest or not - the math still works the same and honest books are still honest books, and dishonest books are still dishonest. So one would be hard pressed to find anywhere that accounting works differently for the believer. (and so also for science). But that isn’t to say that those daily labors can’t be situated within larger contexts that are either God-honoring - or not.
All right. I’ve always admired the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm, for computing discrete Fourier Transforms (Fast Fourier transform - Wikipedia). It would be hard to overstate the importance of this method – it is used for digital signal processing, audio encoding schemes such as MP3, and hundreds of other applications in the digital world. The importance of the FFT is in the efficient way of computing the transform, taking advantage of deep mathematical structure, to improve the running time to O(n log n) from the O(n^2) time using the straightforward method, where n is the input size. Computer scientists get very excited by improving running times with a log n in place of an n. That is because the logarithm grows inverse exponentially slowly, ie. as n goes from 10 to 100 to 1000 to 1000000, the logarithm-base-10 is 1, 2, 3, …, 6 etc. The FFT allows computers to process data in ways that would not be possible without it. One could reasonably say that the modern digital world would not be possible without the FFT.
The ideas of the FFT go back to the great mathematician/astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauss, who surely thought many of God’s thoughts after Him.
It should be noted that the work of computer scientists (and I suppose all scientists) isn’t all about sitting around trying to find beauty. Much of the work is stumbling along, dealing with messy details. But, it’s nice to know that there is a core of beauty, discovered by giants that have thought some of God’s thoughts. And if one is allowed to add to that beauty in some small way, that is a gift from above.
Perhaps that is a valid extra motivation for the Christian in science.
I don’t recall what your view of David Bentley Hart was, but I thought you might be interested in this page… the interview linked there is probably worthwhile as I can’t think of anything from Ken Myers that has disappointed me
Fascinating. I was wondering a while back whether Wright even touches the topic of universalism, and if so, how. But I can’t fit that in now. I am still wrangling with what this “Epistemology of Love” and “Hermeneutic of Love” can mean in the context of what Wright has said.
And I am already two topics behind! (NPoP & Jesus and the Powers)!
Oops. Posted an incomplete draft. I’ll try again.
No question about this.
This is my frustration. I think what you describe is what CAN be said. But Wright seems to me to be taking his argument farther. In the article and in the Gifford lectures, Wright talks about the practice of “doing history” and describes the detailed work that goes into gathering and understanding the details, then abducing from the gathered details the best possible explanation for those. He uses this as an example of the Epistemology of Love. The entire process. In the article (Loving to Know), he says that:
We urgently need to explore the possibilities of a genuine epistemology and hermeneutic of love.
The two most obvious areas to explore might be science and history.
If he is talking about the practice of history, I assume he is also talking about the practice of science, that not only allows the Christian who is a scientist to glorify God as she learns from the detailed examination of nature (or logic required for things like computer science), but also involves the publication (making public) of what is learned, and the public discussion/critique of it.
Yes, absolutely, the Church does need to do this. In so many ways we fail. I think if we really did this and focused on that real person, the overall expression of Christian faith in the world would look much different, far more desirable. Someone earlier – @Mervin_Bitikofer ? – mentioned something very like this.
Certainly from his Lord. But this in no way diminishes the moral imperatives so many non-christians experience as a function of ethics, cultural influences, or another faith as well.
Historically, the economists who have sought to overturn the rapacious properties of our economic system(s) have not been Christians. Christians have largely had a great deal of interest in keeping the status quo and have managed to do it very effectively.
The doctor who saved my daughter’s life by removing a massive brain tumor, and who has overseen her recovery for over a decade is a Muslim. I don’t know that the idea of “moral imperatives” can be compared.
And many incredibly motivated giants have not, yet have managed to think and do marvelous things as well. Christians may be motivated by the recognition of God’s beauty in all of it, but is there any real evidence that we experience more? or extra?
And then @Terry_Sampson is left out in the cold with no Shroud!
Really, I’ve said about I all I think I want to say on this topic, and I don’t think anything new has been added to the discussion. I like you all too much to just argue about this for the sake of arguing.
I have two other discussions I’d like to get to, which include a good deal more reading in addition to my personal reading goals – The Sickness Unto Death.
I vehemently agree with this 
. All image-bearers (people) have an appreciation of truth and beauty. A question for another time: how about animals?
Agreed. Vehemently even - to borrow Andy’s phrase!
Yeah. I’m adding that to my glossary. Hope it’s ok with @Andy7 !
Also, many thanks to everyone who put in time with the lectures, throught them through, and discussed them. You’ve all helped me a lot to process this material, and really learn from it.
I miss being able to have vigorous discussions like I did in university courses. Hearing other peoples’ thoughts and working through them forces me to work through ideas I missed, or didn’t notice, and work through my own take on things.
I’m grateful that others were willing to put in so much work on this. Thank you!
Friends – has no one heard of the phrase “vehemently disagree”? Eg. there was a vehement disagreement between the umpire and the manager. I merely turned it upside down . I make no claim of originality here.
Yes, the discussion here was thought-provoking. Thanks again!
Oh yes! common enough phrase indeed. “Vehement agreement” just struck me as amusing was all.
And the world, for us.
As opposed to the any, many Christians I’ve heard say “It’s all going to burn anyway!” as a justification to treat nature badly.
On the other hand Paul made that admonishment. But we fail to live up to the early church’s tradition of 1/3 of giving to sustaining the church, 1/3 for the poor, and 1/3 for missions. I recall some time ago hearing that the typical modern church spends 90% on sustaining the church, 8% on missions, and 2% for helping the poor.
The way to study the scriptures is to let them be what they are.
The way to study nature is to let it be what it is.
Both of those exclude YEC, and both exclude ID.
Superb assessment! I will have to hope to remember this for next time I’m disputing about biblical ethics with a militant atheist. I already assert that today’s society is for the most part still 2,000 years behind Christian ethics; now I can better explain why.
That is true of understanding the scriptures as well! But it takes work . . . .
Yes. Christian ethics start and end at the Cross.
I think it’s a (broken) signpost.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.