From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 05:40:38 BST
DMB et al,
DMB wrote:
> An objection that it "begins with the conclusion", is simply pointing out
> that perhaps the difference between what's social and what's intellectual
> can be demonstrated by the tension between doctrinal authority and
> intellectual freedom. My questions about and objections to putting
theology
> on the fourth level revolve around that. Its not just a matter of whether
or
> not the church officals will admit the earth is round, its about the aims
> and purposes of that mode of study.
I don't see them as "beginning with the conclusion", but as "beginning with
revelation". And the first thing they must do is account for that beginning
(called apologetics). The ways they have accounted for it are varied, but a
common one amounts to "it just is the case that I have faith in this
revelation, by the grace of God". But the point I and I think Sam want to
make is that in that accounting is the argument that questions of the
existence or non-existence of God, of the origin of everything, of whether
or not the universe is meaningful or meaningless, whether or not
Enlightenment is for real, are not answerable by reason alone. Therefore,
one inevitably works from one faith or other (the agnostic is a de facto
secularist, since revelation requires a response). I can speak from
experience on this. When I had my Aha! moment about the non-spatio-temporal
nature of consciousness, from that point on I had faith in mysticism, even
though that involves a great deal more than just non-spatio-temporality. I
cannot prove that mystics are authentic revealors, but since that time I
have assumed that they are, and from that assumption have drawn out
consequences. Of course, this is not sectarian theology, since I am not
restricting myself to any one mystic, but it is the same kind of
intellectual activity.
The quality of the intellectual work done by theologians varies enormously,
but that it is intellectual seems to me so by definition. Theology just is
the intellect directed at one's religion. If one's faith is sectarian, then
that faith includes faith in that sect, and how much intellectual freedom
one has depends on that sect. Catholicism included in its doctrine that
there could be no conflict between faith and reason, so in theory that
should allow full intellectual freedom. In practice, of course, it didn't,
and that was for social reasons. But all intellectuals have social
restraints. An assistant professor of biology better not espouse Lamarckism
if he wants to get tenure. I would agree that the quality of a theologians's
intellectual activity is affected by social constraints of the particular
sect he or she has faith in, but it is still intellectual activity.
> Is it fair to say that theologians are
> encouraged or even free to question the Church's central doctrines? The
> distinction between social and intellectual levels, in this case, seems to
> revolve around the issue of authority and freedom.
The answer depends on which Church and when. A Protestant theologian --
now -- can write whatever he damn well pleases, as long as he doesn't
pretend to be speaking for the institution of which he is a member. A
Catholic can also write whatever he damn well pleases -- now -- as long as
he does not hold a theological teaching position in a Catholic institution.
Hans Kung had his license to teach theology at Tubingen revoked. So
Catholics are restricted when they are considered to be speaking for the
Church, though lately they can get away with quite a lot that is at variance
with Church doctrine. This is partly because Catholic doctrine has itself
gotten a lot looser since Vatican II. In any case, the line as to what is
allowed and what not is fuzzy.
[Responding to another post]
Matthew Fox got into trouble because he is a priest, and so his writings,
being contrary to doctrine, were seen by the Vatican as a case of one if its
preachers preaching the wrong thing -- and being "in your face" about it. I
would consider him a theologian, since what he wants is to change, or at
least radically reinterpret, Catholic doctrine. If he were not a priest,
then his books would not have aroused controversy -- he would be just
another ultra-liberal Catholic. I would say that Huston Smith's "The World's
Religions" was not a theological book (call it comparative religion), but
his "Why Religion Matters" is, if one stretches theology to include
non-sectarian work. It is a sort of apologetics. Watts is also sometimes
theologian-like, when he promotes and explains Zen, though again that is
stretching things a bit since Zen has no God, but Psychotherapy East and
West is not theological. Just my thoughts.
- Scott
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 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 05:41:35 BST