From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 11:39:30 BST
Hi Rick, (and all)
This thread has just exploded in several different directions, and there are
lots of things I'd like to comment on. I will, as time permits, respond to
the various detailed questions, but I would like to make one element
prominent, because it stands behind the major part of our disagreements. If
I can get you to understand my perspective on this point, then I think it
would stand us in good stead in all the other areas. The element is
'revelation', what it is and what it does.
You wrote (2 April): "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."
The first part of that I have some agreement with, but I think that you are
depending upon a caricature of Christianity to give force to your argument.
More substantially, I don't think that ANY (thinking) Christian, prior to
the theological revolution in the high medieval era (c 1300) would conform
to your expectations (certainly I'm not aware of any theologian who could be
considered in this way); and since that time it is only the extreme
Protestant thinkers who would qualify. In particular, the idea that the
Bible has to be taken literally is an *entirely* modern creation, unknown in
the classical and medieval periods, which had a very subtle 'four-fold'
method of interpreting scripture. Don't you think it at all odd that you
'don't see any real parallel between your views of Christianity and those of
the average Christian' - when I have been given authority by a mainstream
church for *teaching* 'average' Christians? Whose views are representative
of the mainstream? However, all that is really by way of preamble.
I see revelation as, philosophically speaking, no different to what happens
in 'paradigm shifts', ie any DQ breakthrough in our intellectual processes.
Now, as part of that view, I see reason as intellectually sterile, ie, it
can provide nothing of real interest on its own. Moreover, reason as such
cannot arbitrate between competing paradigms - a different paradigm is
accepted on the basis of, eg, aesthetic or pragmatic grounds, not rational
or logical grounds (see Kuhn). Consequently, our most fundamental
perceptions - ie our decisions about competing paradigms - are not based
upon reason. Reason is a secondary matter, parasitic on more important
concerns.
So, the basic decision between competing worldviews is an emotional one, ie
an evaluation (strictly: an assessment of value). This evaluation cannot be
avoided. Clearly we are born into and brought up in a particular cultural
framework, but in so far as we are able to participate in a fourth level
then we are able to judge for ourselves - and in that judgement, we make an
evaluation.
It is true (axiomatic) that a Christian will Jesus as representing the
highest value. This is not something which can be *proven* by reason - but
that, as far as I'm aware, isn't claimed by Christians. What is claimed by
Christians is that it is compatible with reason, that there are no ultimate
contradictions in the Christian faith. The perception that Jesus incarnates
God is revelation, ie it is not something that can be achieved by the
unaided human reason. Philosophically, it has no different status to a
fifteenth century dispute between Ptolemists and Copernicans - you either
'see' it or you don't. What follows from such an insight is, of course, open
to rational debate - and that is what theology does.
The atheist perspective (eg Dawkins/Dennett) does not enjoy a superior
cognitive status - it is just as 'irrational' as a theistic or Christian or
Buddhist or Islamic perspective. Of course, I think it is profoundly lacking
in value - it is parochial, small-minded and ultimately incoherent - but I
don't think that my perspective can be *proven* by reason. Ultimately you
either 'see' that it lacks value or you don't. However, I would say that
Dawkins' perspective is incompatible with the MoQ - would you agree with
that?
Cheers
Sam
"When we speak of God we do not know what we are talking about. We are
simply using language from the familiar context in which we understand it
and using it to point, beyond what we understand, into the mystery that
surrounds and sustains the world we do partially understand" (Herbert
McCabe)
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 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:51:33 BST