 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Poll Question: Do You Believe in Talking Donkeys? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/11/2002 1:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Tuesday.
Are you trying to say that you will pay me back for that hamburger?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/12/2002 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. I know this has been a long time coming. But I've been somewhat preoccupied. If some of this seems scattered, I'm sorry. My focus has been a bit off. It'll come back to me. Anyways...here goes...
Modes:
quote:
do you think that there are important parallels between what POW and I are suggesting? If so, what? (FYI: I think there are some.)
Maybe I do. Here goes. POW's focus on prayer/worship would be close to your idea of COMMITMENT. Honest prayer and worship not only BASES itself on primary commitments, but ENHANCES the commitments themselves...which was, I perceived, the point of this (emphasis mine):
"The two phrases 'lex orandi' and 'lex credendi' are juxtaposed, but without an indication that one is only cause and the other only effect."
Kinda like the "hermeneutical spiral" type idea. (Visualize it.  ) There are probably more. Holla em out.
************************************************************
Modes:
quote:
Do you think it is legit to start (apologetically speaking) with the question of who has the most adequate assessment of the problem rather than the stand-alone provability (or even simple plausibility for this creates lowest-common-denominator type scenarios) of the whole system? If not, why not?
Yes, insofar as it would help give a means to test different possible views for workability in the area of the problem. (I'm assuming that you, my Kierkegaardian friend, are refering to anxiety and the "leap into sinfulness" that results when you are speaking of "problem") The only issue is, as you state, when someone posits a BETTER explanation or understanding of the problem or even a better "solution", then there is a genuine chance of a paradigm shift. At any rate, looking at the workability above is a necessary part of the process of dealing with the overall PLAUSIBILITY of a given view.
However, it's imperative to note something with respect to the type of worldviews we are discussing. You were very upfront when you said:
quote:
I would push the debate with other religions (which you are about to bring up, no doubt ) back to the same question SK starts with: do they have an adequate understanding of sin? If so, what is the solution? To date, I have not encountered a definition of sin that is more adequate than that found in Christianity. If you can't get the problem right, what hope is there for getting the solution right? The summary statement is then: I would feel truly threatened in my faith (intellectually now,) if I encountered a system of thought or religion that had a better understanding of sin than Christian faith has and moreover had (as a result) a more adequate understanding of salvation than Christ provides. This is a positive approach to assessing the claims of various beliefs based on how well the do with the negative aspects of life. RATHER than a purely critical approach of "doubting everything" as though some lowest common denominator was going to save my sorry butt.
In this, it seems to me that you posit the "undeniable" reality of sin (and its effects) as being the natural starting point. Fine. You also believe that the most adequate understanding of salvation (and necessarily SIN) is found in Christianity. Cool enough. But how does any of this translate to the ACTUALITY of the crux of the Christian faith? To me, this is like saying:
1) Belief A is the most adequate possible explanation for Answer/Experience B to the perceived Problem/Experience C.
2) People experience Answer B existentially in their lives as a result of holding Belief A.
3) Belief A is the ACTUAL state of affairs in reality.
This doesn't make sense to me. A potential solution of a problem does not necessitate the EXISTENCE of said "solution." C.S. Lewis' idea of "myth anticipating reality" as applied to Christian thought, I believe, is taken way too far (just like Anselm's argument, in some cases) Just because a potential worldview has immense workability in an area IN THE CASE OF ITS EXISTENCE does not mean that it actually exists. This is why plausibility (including historical probability) is quite important.
************************************************
Modes:
quote:
In the search for truth (or a life lived authenticly), how do these three factor in for you: honesty, humility, commitment. I am guessing that you agree with all three personal values, but how do they intersect?
For me, there is a point at which one needs to make a decision and repeat it. This may seem to favor commitment, and it does, but it does not mean stopping with the honesty and the humility. Your examples of people who are from other religions or are intellectually rigorous agnostics and so forth seem to either have alternate commitments (other religions) or stress the honesty to the point that if they do not have absolute security in a position they will not take it. This may even reflect humility intellectually, but it lacks commitment. The three need to be in balance. I am just curious if this is a interesting triplet of values to you and if you have suggestions about how they ought to weigh in together.
Great question. And one I'm thinking applies to all areas in life, as I'm seeing it. How about this...
Like you, I agree that commitment is necessary to life. One "lives" (if it can be considered living at all) in a limbo of indecision and inauthencity if one makes no commitments to certain ways of life. [Note: Authenticity does not mean BEING CORRECT. One can surely live authentically and be wrong as two left shoes! If there is ANYTHING that postmodernism has shown us, it's that there IS no "neutral ground" or complete objectivity, intellectually or otherwise. And any attempt to be completely objective or assert such is at worst terribly arrogant, and at best hopelessly naive. (Surely, Kierkegaard said essentially the same thing, right?) But I suppose the question becomes what is the commitment TO?
Here's the thing:
What if one's primary COMMITMENT is to, as much as possible, be HONEST and HUMBLE in the face of reality?
What you seem to be applying to me is an implication of the principle of belief conservation...mixed with the idea of precursive faith. Basically, a person has starting point belief X (provided by a number of sources contextually), and this person basically says:
"If I evaluate any belief Y that comes in fundamental conflict with my current belief system, I am rationally warranted in holding on to MY belief/conviction, if I don't find the reasons compelling enough to believe Belief Y."
Broken down, all this says is:
"If you want me to believe Y, you'd better have some GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD reasons that are VERY compelling to me."
My concern is when COMMITMENT goes beyond forming a context from whence truth-seeking can begin and take place...to become a space of utter DOGMATISM. In other words, it is possible that one's commitment to a certain belief can be SO GREAT, momentous, or even EXISTENTIALLY SATIFYING that one will negate my primary commitment to be honest and humble before reality...such that application of the principle of belief conservation is pretty much impossible. Isn't this when zealotry and fanaticism take place? When COMMITMENT to a cause or belief outruns honestly and humbly looking at particular facts of the matter that may be considered?
When does COMMITMENT to "stick out" a marriage become AVOIDING REALITY about a bad marital situation that needs dissolving?
When does COMMITMENT to a certain economic system become AVOIDING REALITY about it's effects on people? (Examples: Russia and India)
When does COMMITMENT to a certain religious belief become AVOIDING REALITY about things that may contradict said belief. (beliefs about homosexuality or seven 24 hour day creation of the earth?)
In short, WHERE is the balance that Modes mentions actually struck? Let me give my perspective...
The balance of honestly, humility, and commitment shows itself in true MELIORISM, applied to belief formation. This is because the primary COMMITMENT of meliorism is like I've mentioned: to be honest and humble in the face of reality. Precursive faith is allowed (even necessary) in acknowledging that some leaps of faith are just essential to living. Commitment (with respect to ideology) is allowed in that once these steps are taken, one must (for a time at least) acknowledge that point AND NOWHERE ELSE as their true starting points. Humility comes in in being willing to acknowledge the commitment starting point NOT being "absolute truth" (though it may function as one's absolute) and willing to (as painful as it may be) give up the commitment "starting point" AT ITS FUNDAMENTAL BASES if sufficient warrants are given. Honesty is more a point of conscious understanding of self than anything else, as I see it. This is because I believe the dictum that "we don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are." Indeed, we deceive ourselves many times UNintentionally, but I also believe that we CONSCIOUSLY endure dishonesty to ourselves and our realities because we are afraid to face OURSELVES. (Wouldn't you agree, Semeia?) Honesty would be acknowledging one's own felt conclusions, given one's perception of reality. This basically means following the evidence (and your heart) WHEREVER it leads for the sake of integrity. Chances are this process leads to a NEW conviction or commitment. And the process begins anew.
Thus the answer to this question:
When does your commitment to honesty and intellectual humility get qualified by some other decision that you have made and intend to repeat?
...is simply NEVER. It's NEVER the case that my commitment to honesty (to oneself and one existential perception of reality) and intellectual humility (the understanding the implications of one's finite nature) is qualified to commitment to ANY view or ideology.
THIS INCLUDES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRIST.
Why do I feel this so important? Because, in my opinion, this is the only context that genuine communication can take place...including INTER-FAITH discussion! If you have a committed Christian who:
--is not genuinely humble enough to admit that their precious convictions COULD be wrong on any level (or that those of religious others may be RIGHT), or
--is not honest enough with themselves and religious others to admit to having felt conclusions that may contradict the held commitment,
how in the world is any true DIALOGUE possible? If commitment to a POSITION is ever allowed to overrides the commitment to OPENNESS, how is this not dogmatism of the worst kind?
So again, it's NEVER the case that my commitment to honesty and intellectual humility is qualified to commitment to ANY view or ideology.
*******************************************
Modes:
quote:
I'd also like to suggest that life is a process, and once we realize this we must enter into with some level of commitment (make a decision and repeat it). This will force us into what will feel like inauthentic situations because life is not "geared" toward our having faith, nor is it geared toward our being atheists/agnostics. There are plenty of challenging problems for both commitments. We do this--enter life with some commitment--with some sort of posture (thank you Luke Jacobs for this insight) and that posture ideally should be honesty and humility before ourselves and before God. This results in a positively stated posture of thanksgiving and worship (insert huge list of passages which speak of giving thanks and continual praise, honoring God in all things, etc.). Not that we don't have honesty and humility before others--we should strive for that--but we cannot be fully transparent to others the way we can (and always ARE from God's angle) with God. At least not in this life. In terms of a life lived, we must lean on commitment. Here's POW's concern as well, I think, the language of prayer is where we are most able (because it is essential to the practice) to articulate the honesty and humility factors and this facilitates God's empowering (typically, though God may have other plans at times) us for continual living in the commitments that we have made.
Just my thinking here. This is THEISTIC existentialism to be sure...where God (actually a TYPE of God) is presupposed. (Dare I say that SK didn't think in a PLURALISTIC context, but fundamentally in a specifically CHRISTIAN context, where mention of the word "God" meant the BIBLICAL, CHRISTIAN God.) But not only is it PRESUPPOSED, it's also to some extent DOGMATIC...meaning that CONVERSION from the presupposition is not possible. But surely we understand that if my primary commitment is taken seriously, this cannot be the case. It is realized that the presupposed view of God that we have is a TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS from whence we are working, according to the principle of belief conservation. Is this to say that there is no commitment? Surely not. As we've agreed, commitment is necessary to even get the process started. But what we are saying is that we will ACT upon our tentative hypothesis as being TRUE...unless we are OTHERWISE convinced.
Now, this is where things get hairy. There are people who INSIST on believing that this line of thinking "depersonalizes" the relationship between God and humans, making God like some kind of deduction or whatever. This idea keeps missing the friggin point. We IMPLICITLY do this with every human relationship that we have. We just don't make it OVERTLY RECOGNIZED that we are doing such. What do we think the whole "innocent, until proven guilty" idea is? or the assumption that people are telling the truth UNTIL given reason to think otherwise? We treat the genuine, truthful nature of the other person as a TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS that we are willing to take as being TRUE, until we are given sufficient reasons to doubt that hypothesis. Accordingly, we take what these people SAY and DO in the same manner. What I've never understood is how many people don't seem to grasp how all this takes place when dealing with the idea of God (or one's particular conception of God)
Please hear this, people: The process of "faith" that we do with God is FUNDAMENTALLY no different that that which we use for almost all things we do...including interpersonal human relationships!
***************************************************
Modes:
quote:
Reason is a powerful tool. So powerful that it can point to its own limits. We should heed these limits when we recognize them. I am talking about the implausibility of "proving" that which does not present itself for such scrutiny. This is not to default to myth but rather to recognize that faith does indeed pick up where reason leaves off. We do have to "abduct" some of our convictions without being able to analytically demonstrate the necessity of our conclusions. We are shown how and when to do this by heroes of faith in the Bible. Abraham believed (not "proved") God and it was attributed to him as righteousness Romans 4:1-3. Faith is defined well for us in Hebrews 11:1 it is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things NOT seen. There is an abduction necessary here, we must accept that we cannot prove it, if we could, it would be something other than faith. For faith is the conviction of things NOT seen, not proven, etc. This is not to say that things don't point to faith, they do, but they don't get us all the way there. It is also true that some things don't point to faith. This is why I don't think natural theology does us much good in terms of getting to Christian faith. Christian faith is a revealed faith. Not one that you can get to by following the pointers in the cosmos. You might get to a god of sorts, but it will not, by definition be the revealed God (read "incarnated") that we need.
Ok. Now, what I want to know is how is this fundamentally different from what I said takes place with respect to Scripture, the authority its given, and historicity considerations?
**************************************************
Modes:
quote:
There are lots of details that can be argued about in terms of plausibility but very few that can be verified unequivocally. I am not advocating a mythical reading of the texts but rather I am advocating treating them as what they are historically speaking. They are witnesses. Testimonies. The credibility of the witness is important, obviously. But we do not reject the testimony of a witness just because they get some details wrong, or even because they have fundamentally misunderstood something (earth on four pillars, for example)! We take their word as their word and attempt to understand what it means that we have such a witness who testifies to such things. Now add to this the topic of inspiration (God's presence in the process of communicating the Gospel) and perhaps even "the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" ("Yeah!!" for Calvin on this one!) (God's presence in the process of recieving the Gospel personally) and you have what seems to me a very convincing, though not technically provable, "basis" for faith. You have reason for conviction and a basis for a life lived in obedience to this call.
You're right. We take their testimonies as THEIR WORD...within their context...with their understandings of the world...and their corresponding MANNER of testimony, right? These considerations pose a lot of ambiguity as you well know. And thinking about our ideas of inspiration (which are pretty much based on Scriptures "self-attestation") and the "inner witness" of the Spirit (Yay for the Mormons!)...aren't THESE considerations also pretty ambiguous? They sure are. And I think that's why some people are willing to leave a LOT of stuff up in the air...just as long as they can count on the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection. Why? Because they honestly think its the MAIN thing that matters. Why? Because of what Paul clearly says! If Christ ain't raised, it's all a bunch of bunk. Bultmann's kerygma just won't do for us. If there is no REAL Risen Christ, it's just not worth it. Moreover, if there is no REAL Risen Christ, then a whole bunch of people have either been talking to themselves or to something else other than the Galilean. Ah! But there's a problem. How can we assert the historicity of the resurrection if we have questions about the historicity about certain ideas in the Gospels? Simple. Base it on the IMPORTANCE of the personal experience of the Risen Lord. The resurrection HAS to be real. Or else the experience is inauthentic.
Now, from there, it's pretty much a matter of working backwards like I said.
See what I mean?
***********************************************
Electra:
quote:
I’m not so sure that Mephi is in danger of “backsliding into the enlightenment.” I think that his question is just as important for pre- or post- or non- (insert applicable prefix- ) enlightenment people as well. Those who grant the unverifiability of historical events in Scripture and remain believers tend to go the route of demythologization—e.g. it doesn’t matter whether or not the events really happened, because they are just as meaningful as myths.
But think about that.
I’m a fan of mythology and I think it is highly underrated—but not that underrated. Myth is a cultural construct. I’m a sinner in need of grace, and unless there is a savior outside myself and my context, I’m lost. So I think Mephi’s question is not just a throw-back to the enlightenment. As someone who grants the unverifiability of biblical events, but maintains that my belief is grounded in history, I take this question very seriously. I have some work to do if I am going to avoid the charge of fideism.
YES! YES! YES!
Doc, PLEASE, PLEASE come in here and talk about your epistemological conclusions about Scriptural assertions with Jesus being the Son of God...and WHY you have them.
Ok. Let's see if this works.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/12/2002 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As someone who grants the unverifiability of biblical events, but maintains that my belief is grounded in history, I take this question very seriously. I have some work to do if I am going to avoid the charge of fideism.
I would just like to add that if I must distinguish my faith from fideism, then so must someone who grants the unverifiability of biblical events, and denies that Christian belief is grounded in history.
Glad you’re back on board Meph!
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/12/2002 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay, I am going to do two things here:
1. simplify the conversation so that others might also jump in.
2. narrow the focus.
Here are two important points I'd like to follow up on:
1. Does your commitment to intellectual humility and honesty potentially hide, and hide behind, a deeper problem? That of your own inability to be fully honest and humble? Is this not the continuation of hubris rather than its extermination? [Aren't you assuming that your virtues (even if they are as noble as honesty and humility) will actually get you somewhere?]
2. Doesn't this mean that we are left where I began? What is wrong with the world and how do we know this? Moreover, who has the best understanding of what this problem is and how it is solved? I grant you that sin presupposes itself as a theological category. But it is deeply and readily verified by anyone's existential experience.
The end point here is that God is both the solution and the condition for our understanding the solution. If it were merely a matter of our being humble enough and honest enough we'd be okay, but we are dealing with an impossibility here. God must reveal our sin to us. And the same God must be the solution to our problem. This is the strength of the Christian doctrine of grace. it doesn't leave much room for us to mess it up.
About commitment, it sounds as if you are suggesting that it is a virtue (intellectual or otherwise) to suspend conviction for the sake of positive conversation/dialogue with those who believe something different. Why? How would you feel if a Buddhist suspended their Buddhist convictions while talking to you? Would that person not merely reflect back to you what you present? Where is the genuine dialogue in that? The "other" must be "the other" with full integrity and honesty about the convictions and decisions they have made (and which their life now reflects as a result, it should be assumed).
Being a Christian is to have made a decision, not to suspend one.
That decision is to accept the forgiveness of sins, because your sin has been revealed to you and the Revealer extended forgiveness as well! The decision pertains to a person (in every which way). I know you warned about this above, but there is a difference between dealing with the hypothetically provable and falsifiable vs. dealing with the living God. Abraham dealt with the latter and was not so interested in the former. This is the nature of faith. honesty and humility not withstanding, we must make a and live by it.
Your turn. 
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/12/2002 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi folks. Sorry I haven't been able to weigh in on this (esp. to Meph who requested me to). I've been seriously swamped with writting projects/ deadlines as well as pastoring a church that has been under some serious assault lately. Ive only had time to read the most recent page of this thread, so I'm not up to speed. But here's a few opinions none the less.
1. I see nothing intellectually dishonest about committment. Everybody does it, and has to do it, all the time. Scientists invest their life work in a project. Lovers invest their life in a spouse. Believes invest their life in a faith. And none of it is absolutely certain. Yet, this is the best way to live. And, in fact, this is the only way to live. What is intellectually dishonest is when a person's commitment involves self-deception.
The idea that a person can stand "in no place" without commitments involves self-deception, in my opinion.
2. Meph asked about my grounds for believing Jesus is the Son of God.Here they are.
a) Whether or not we say historical events are "verifiable" or not depends on the criteria we use for "verifiability." We can't use the same standard we use for (say) the empirical sciences, but this shouldn't condemn us to a prison of agnosticism. Isn't every certain JKF was assasinated (even if we aren't sure how many people did it). This is "verifiable" isn't it?
I think that, if people will accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, the case for Jesus being the Son of God is very strong. His claims, his miracles and especially his death and resurrection are, I think, very strong by standard historical standards. (See Cynic Sage or Son of God). If this or that section isn't EXACTLY accurate, it doesn't bug me in the least (though even say this presupposes a criteria of accuracy that has to be discussed).
b) The picture of God as Jesus Christ dying for my sins FITS. Its part of a whole world view that makes sense out of my life. It's the central part of "the story" that makes sense of my story. In this sense, it is TRUE MYTH. AS Lewis said, Jesus is "myth become incarnate."
c) My EXPERIENCE of living in Christ. What starts as a historical hypothesis (e.g. did Jesus make the claims and do the miracles attributed to him) ends up as a living reality ("living in Christ"). Of course, in the real world, often the experience preceeds and prejudices the historical investigation. But this shouldn't disqualify the historical investigation, since ALL historsical investiagion is prejudiced, based at least in part on the EXPERIENCE of the investigator.
3. Is my faith in Christ "objective"? Yes and no. No if you mean this enlightenment-modernist idea of "that upon which all reasonable people would agree." But yes if you mean someting like "having grounds outside oneself." If contemporary science (and many other fields of thought )have shown anything, they've shown that "objective" and "subjective" are simply hypothetical poles of one reality -- namely, RELATIONAL REALITY. There is no me I can know except the one RELATED to the world, nor a world I can know except the one related to ME. So even my distinction between my experience, my worldview issue, and my historical grounds is quite hypothetical. In reality, they interrelated with one another. They are "poles" of a relationship.
All I got time for now. Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/14/2002 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Well now, I guess I settled THAT issue. 
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| 81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|