From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 20:41:38 BST
Hey Sam and all,
There are so many interesting points in your post I want to respond to, but
I just don't have the time to properly take on all of the issues you have
raised right now (work is a little hectic these days and I'm a little behind
on my replies... So anyone waiting for a reply from me, I beg your
patience). I've tried to hit the major points you raised without retreading
over old ground.
But first, Aquinas...I must admit that I got most of my information about
him from an article by a modern philosopher of religion (i've really only
read some excerpts from his work directly). I probably should have said he
is 'claimed' by a school known as 'fideism'. As for whether the charge
fits, you're obviously more knowledgeable about his works than I, so I'll
differ to your judgment. Now, then...
SAM WROTE:
I'm happy with
> "there is only "theology" which encompasses the study of god concepts from
> any and all sectarian religions", because to my mind that sort of theology
> can comfortably be (in fact is in practise) coterminous with what happens
> within a particular tradition. Where I am uncomfortable is thinking that
> this process of abstraction provides a cognitively superior viewpoint - I
> would deny that.
SAM ALSO WROTE:
> ...The essential conceit which I object to is the notion that there is
'neutral
> ground' from which it is possible to impartially assess the truth claims
of
> different religious beliefs (ie 'objectively').
RICK
In light of these two comments, the question arises whether objective
reason needs to be a "neutral ground" in order to be "a cognitively superior
viewpoint". I don't believe it does. That is, I do think that knowledge
rooted in objectivity is superior to (ie. better than) knowledge rooted in
faith, though I don't believe objectivity to be a truly 'neutral' viewpoint
(as I understand your use of the term). It isn't a neutral source of truth,
it's just a better source of truth.
The results that have been produced by 'objectivity' I think are just
too stupendous to be ignored. No religion that I know of can lay claim to
anything even approaching the phenomenal power of the descriptions of
reality produced by science. There isn't even a close contender. More to
the point, there isn't even a *closest* contender, as no religion really
seems any closer to the explanatory power of reason and objectivity than any
other.
Moreover, If we take 'truth' to mean things like logical consistency,
agreement with experience and economy of explanation than I think the
objective viewpoint is a perfectly valid ground to stand upon if one wishes
to assess the 'truth' of the claims of different religious beliefs.
To borrow a phrase from one of favorite professional magicians, Mr. Penn
Gillette (of Penn & Teller), "God lives in the margins of science, that's
why the believers like to keep those margins wide and blurry." Granted,
Gillette is no theologian, but he is an expert on the ways in which people
are fooled and fool themselves. You say that the philosophical tradition is
just another religion. But when you say that, it sounds to me like you're
trying to blur the distinctions between knowledge derived from reason
and knowledge derived from faith.
I think Scott R. was doing the same thing when he wrote: "The we should
say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are theologians, since they
assume materialism, and then try to make sense of the world, just as a
Christian theologian assumes that God exists and that Jesus revealed God,
and then try to make sense of the world." The analogy is false. Dawkins
doesn't "assume" materialism the same way a Christian assumes god exists.
Dawkins *deduces* materialism from evidence. It is a hypothesis he measures
against real world experience; his hypotheses change over time to adapt for
new evidence and new experiences; they are written in pencil.. If a better
theory came along that explained all of Dawkins observations and evidence
better than materialism, he would drop it like a bad habit. The Christian
theologian, on the other hand, begins with the conclusion that god exists
and Jesus revealed god (neither of which are provable), and then tries to
arrange the rest of his views of reality such that he never has to give up
this original premise (or so it often seems to me). Most religious doctrine
is brittle by definition. I know you see religion very differently, but
from what you've written I don't see any real parallel between your views of
Christianity and those of the average Christian, who tends to like his Bible
taken literally.
You object to the notion that "there is 'neutral ground' from which it
is possible to impartially assess the truth claims of different religious
beliefs (ie 'objectively')." But do you really think some sort of
'neutrality' is necessary to refute the proposition that a man can be
resurrected and that therefore if one is to believe that Christ came back
from the dead it must be believed *entirely on faith* and in the face of the
mountains of evidence to the contrary? You can just say all Christian
thought is metaphorical (as you seem to be doing), but then you need to
explain why the Bible doesn't belong in the fiction section with all the
other nice metaphors.
> > SAM (from your second post)
> > Firstly, doesn't the ideology of 'objective process' rely upon SOM
> > reasoning?
> >
> > RICK
> > No. It relies on S/O reasoning. No SOM is necessary.
SAM
> Could you explain the practical difference? ie, in what way does resort to
> S/O reasoning (in pursuing an 'objective' understanding of religions)
avoid
> making the mistaken value-assumptions that the MoQ critiques?
RICK
The MoQ, as I understand it, rejects the notion of Subject/Object thought
being transformed into a complete metaphysics. That is, it objects to the
view that nothing exists except subjects and objects (since such a view
leaves out DQ entirely and blurs the lines between the 4 levels). The MoQ
has no objection to using the subject/object dichotomy as a tool for
understanding, so long as it is acknowledged to be just one high-quality
intellectual pattern. The mistaken value-assumptions of SOM are avoided (or
at least minimized) by the increased clarity provided by the 4 levels and
the acknowledgment of Dynamic Quality as an influence.
> > SAM (to DMB)
> > But depending on your basic framework, theology can
> > include philosophy of religion and comparative studies, or vice versa. I
> > think it is a prejudice to say the 'inclusion' has to be one way.
> >
> > RICK
> > Agreed. All that is necessary is that your audience understands how you
> are
> > using the terms.
>
SAM
> I hope I'm clear!!
RICK
So far, so good, I think.
Thanks again for this fun thread.
I have to get back to work now....
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 20:42:18 BST