 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/18/2001 8:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | ...by Pierce. (and THAT's the real reason he wasn't preaching last sunday;)
doc presented "Abduction" on the "Why no second Exodus?" thread in this way:
quote:
All theodicies are instances of a form of reason Charles Pierce called "abduction." Abduction follows the following form:
1. Fact x is surprising.
2. If we suppose that state of affairs y pertains, x is no longer surprising. Given y, x would be expected.
Therefore: we have good reason to suppose that state of affairs y pertains.
...and requested feedback.
I dropped some of this in at one point in a response to Mephi, but here is an initial challenge (from an agnostic angle, mind you, not my own) to abduction as I suspect doc might employ it:
1. Is it less surprising to posit the existence of "Satan" (and "the demonic" in general!) than to explain what we see as evil in some other way? Most people would say that this is NOT less surprising, unless they already beleive in demons and angels.
2. Is it less surprising that God became a human being-and still remained God, then to explain the events of Jesus' life death and supposed resurrection in some other way?
What do ya'll think?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/19/2001 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/19/2001 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes questions my Piercian abductive methodology by asking:
1. Is it less surprising to posit the existence of "Satan" (and "the demonic" in general!) than to explain what we see as evil in some other way? Most people would say that this is NOT less surprising, unless they already beleive in demons and angels.
Response: In his book Human Knowledge , Bertrand Russell proved that the acceptance of any scientific theory depends on the "prior probability" one gives to a theory relative to the data in need of explanation as well as competing theories. This bothered him greatly, for it was so subjective. But there you go.
In other words, Modes is right. Whether or not someone accepts the view that evil in the world is to be accounted for by appealing to (among other things) Satan depends on how IMPROBABLE they think EVIL is and how PROBABLE they think the existence of Satan is. (The issue is, of course, much more complex than this. WHY do they believe or not beleive in Satan, demons etc... Why believe in GOD? What is their presupposed view of God? etc...
On the whole I would not expect my warfare theodicy to have much appeal to people who a) aren't convinced in the existence of God or in his goodness; and/or b) don't hold to a rather high view of Scripture. Hence, I would first try to convince people of God and of the Bible before I'd try to convince them of the reality of Satan and demons. [Not necessarily so, however, for showing by the warfare theodicy that evil can be reconciled with the existence of God may help one believe in God in the first place. Moreover, one CAN produce some non-biblical empirical arguments supporting the existence of angels and demons, and for some these might actually serve as arguments in suport of the inspiration of the Bible which speaks of them].
2. Is it less surprising that God became a human being-and still remained God, then to explain the events of Jesus' life death and supposed resurrection in some other way?
Response: If its NOT less surprising, why do you believe it? It seems to me you've hit the nail precisely on the head in terms of what fundamentally distinguishes the believer from the non-believer. For a committed, incalcetrant naturalist, ANY HYPOTHESIS that excludes miracles, the idea of God, and certainly the idea of God becoming a man, is BETTER than one that DOES include these things, for these things are inherently (viz. a head of time/ prior probability) improbable, if not impossible. For the believer, these things are not that improbable. Hence, if all naturalistic hypotheses fail to adequately account for the evidnece, the supernatural can be legitimately invoked.
History, like science, like Metaphysics, works by abduction. (There are roles for induction and deduction as well, according to Pierce, but they serve to confirm or disconfirm abduction.) Given surprising fact x, what must we suppose to be true to explain it (viz. render it intelligible, less surprising)? While there is, as you point out, a significant element of subjective evaluation in abduction, there is no way to avoid this or ultimately adjudicate between differing evaluations. Yet, there is SoME comforting in realizing that this irreducible element of subjectivity attends to all areas of human knowing.
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 7/19/2001 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey, I'll make you a deal. I'll respond to your abandoned question if you'll respond to mine. Cool?
Mine's about doc being abducted, I know you can handle it.
Yours is easy, Kleenex has a secret patent for an anti-gravity device. It's woven into the fabric of the cardboard boxes. So, basically, the next one is just "falling" out. The strength of the device is about -1.002 G-force so sometimes that last one is stuck by static tothe bottom of the box.
Now go answer mine with an equally convincing response.
Okay
quote:
2. Is it less surprising that God became a human being-and still remained God, then to explain the events of Jesus' life death and supposed resurrection in some other way?
What do ya'll think?
Jesus body is wired with a special patented anti-death device to the strength of about -1.002D (D = the pull of death over one lifetime). Jesus origional plan was to raise on the second day (a little known fact that many Bible scholars miss) but some death static cling in the garmits they wrapped his body in detered him an extra day.
Was that an equally convincing response?
d.c.
dudechild
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" -Art Hoppe
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 7/19/2001 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Seriously though,
quote:
1. Is it less surprising to posit the existence of "Satan" (and "the demonic" in general!) than to explain what we see as evil in some other way? Most people would say that this is NOT less surprising, unless they already beleive in demons and angels.
2. Is it less surprising that God became a human being-and still remained God, then to explain the events of Jesus' life death and supposed resurrection in some other way?
What do ya'll think?
I'm with Doc for the most part.
in response to #2 C.S. Lewis compares the strangeness of resurrection to the strangeness of life in general. When kids are first told how babies are made some of them just don't believe it. it's too wierd (wait, i before e exceptt... ahh who cares). Just like some people (that nicademmous guy) think rebirth is wierd too. Materialists can't avoid mysticism either. the natural world is just too suprizing. Sandburg worship the sun. Physicists are becoming wild-eyed mystics.
d.c
dudechild
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" -Art Hoppe
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/19/2001 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey doc,
Thanks for that great response! I appreciate the points you made. You read me well. But they brought up further questions for me:
1. Whose abductions are to be weighted most heavily? It sounds like it makes as much difference WHO is doing the abduction as anything. In a world where specialization increases in direct proportion to the level of ones education, it seems the era of the publicly recognized "great minds" is over. Now the best you can hope for is a great "X", where X is some specific title pertinent to an area of specialization. By "great minds" I mean those thinkers from previous centuries who spent their whole lives learning almost all that was available to know (this needs further qualification, but you know what I mean) during their time. I think of Whitehead as one of the last of these, though Tillich made a noble attempt as well. The question of WHO does the abducting seems more important now than ever! Do we elevate one field of research or science over the others? Perhaps reassert the obvious fact that theology is still the Queen of all sciences?  Maybe a more fair question is this, whose abductions do YOU trust most? How do you sort through all this personally.
2. Doesn't it seem intuitive that in a world where abduction (and therefore, subjectivity) is so prevalent, apologetics ought to take a different tack then logical "proofs"? How about we "abduct" an approach where we hit non-believers where it really matters? I mean, let's press on questions that the reflective ones ask themselves, or if they don't they maybe would if challenged to. As you said, one of the things I was getting at is that people are either believers or they are not. We can't make them one or the other, but we can draw them into a position where they will have to decide, right? When I encountered the Lord, what were my options really? Either repent, believe in God and start a whole new life... or dismiss the whole thing and take the mental blow which denial of my experience would entail. Faithfully, God is so gracious as to continue to meet us where we are at so the first option doesn't fade in the same way the second might. How about an apologetics where people actually experience God!? BECAUSE if a person's frame of reference is shaped by their experience, what could be more dramatic in opening someone up to faith than a genuine experience of the power and presence of God? Sorta makes me think twice about "seeker sensitive" services!! So their frame of reference would be changed and NOW they would be more likely to believe that such a God as they just experienced, might have cared so much for them as to become incarnate...is this the idea? Change the surrounding parameters of thinking in order to "make way" for new thoughts becoming less surprising than they previously may have been? Seems like a lot of work, you are effectively working toward transforming entire worldviews!
Any feed back would be welcome, jus' processin' out loud here... (doc, am I trackin' still?)
#1 seems to boil down to, CREDIBILITY counts. Bigtime.
#2 seems to boil down to, to change someones mind/heart requires changing their reality. (Hmmm, relational apologetics?)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/22/2001 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc!!!
Doc!!
Doc!
doc!
doc....
Come back an play just a bit more, will ya?
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/22/2001 9:47:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/27/2001 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | ahem..., (clears throat, takes deep breath)
WHASSUP DOC?
com'on back now y'hear?
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2001 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes:
..........looks like you've got "up Doc" on your face!
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/27/2001 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | |  
"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 | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/30/2001 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | So what does it take to bait the doc around here?
Doc, every time we get real about subjectivity, you bail. Whassup wit dat
Surely there is more to be said.
Others? come on now ya'll.
"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 | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/3/2001 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | |
Er,...ditto.
"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 | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/3/2001 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 8/3/2001 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey! Check it out! Modes has some great stuff goin' on here! Meph would be proud! Doc sure would want to get in on this! Others will be intrigued!
dudechild
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" -Art Hoppe
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/4/2001 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay okay okay all right all ready. heh, who has time to keep up with EVERY conversation. I've been sort of obsessed with the triune structure deal lately.
Modes points out the element of subjectivity in "abduction." From this (as I read him) he conjectures that apologetics should perhaps rely less on formal proofs and appeal more to the subjectivity of nonbelievers. I have five responses to this.
1. Pierce granted that "abduction" -- postulating a state of affairs to render a "suprising fact" expected -- is largely subjective. Since there are an infinity of possible "states of affairs" we might postulate, how can we how to postuate close to the truth? His answer was that we have to assume at the outset that we are wired for truth. There can be no absolute dichtomy between ontology and epistemology (he was vehemently opposed to Cartesianism). Evidence of this is hard-wiring is seen in the fact that we all assume we can know truth (even skeptics assume this, though inconsistently), and our scientific theories work. I thus agree with Pierce, as did Bertrand Russell (on the prior probability thing), Whitehead ("reformed subjectivist principle") and others. We are able to, at least at times, "guess" in the right direction (Pierce admitted "guessing" is a large part of "abduction"). And, therefore, I would first question the degree to which Modes plays logic and subjectivity off against each other.
2. Abduction was only the first step we need to take as we try to grasp truth. Pierce argued that it must be followed by induction (generalizing experience) and deduction (striving for internal consistency). Postulated "states of affairs" that render suprising facts less surprising must be further confirmed with evidence and logic, for, as said, there are other "states of affairs" that could also explain the "surprising fact." Formal logic and rigorous evidential investigation thus do not conflict with abduction, with its subjective elements. To the contrary, productive logic and evidential investigation are always about something -- they presuppose a prior "abduction."
3. If science operated the way Modes is recommending contemporary apologetics should operate, we'd never get anywhere. Science assumes that original hypotheses, while initially subjective, are part of the reasoning process, not opposed to the reasoning process. Why should apologetic reasoning -- or any theological reasoning for that matter -- be less rigorous than any other science? We are ourselves looking for truth as much as the unbeliever, and our look for truth is the more fundamental concern than trying to convince the unbeliever.
4. The fact that the warfare worldview renders "the otherwise suprising fact" of evil in the world intelligible is only one of the reasons for holding it. We can also appeal to other criteria such as our reasons for affirming Scritpure as true, combined with our exegesis which shows that the warfare worldview arises out of Scripture. Not only this, but I and Paul Eddy have also collected two chapters worth of more objective arguments and evidence for the reality of good and evil spirits. This was originally going to be part of Satan and the Problem of Evil, but was deleted for space considerations. I am not niave in thinking that the arguments and evidence for spirits is self-interpretative or that it would convince all. But this much is true of all evidence in any field.
5. All said and done, I largely agree with Mode's more Kierkegaardian emphasis on appealing to peoples' subjective needs and conflicts to render the Gospel plausible. People are not only brains. But, having said that, people have brains, and many of them (all, I suspect, to some degree) need to have things make sense in the head before they can embrace it with their heart.
So, I think the best approach is to shoot in both directions. Reason with the head, Preach and Love to the heart, and trust the Holy Spirit to use both to convince the unconvinced and win the lost.
Hard core LOGIC and passionate FAITH. That's what Christus Victory Ministry is all about.
Doc
ps. I have been repeatedly accused of being overly rationalistic, with some merit. I always respond: "what are your reasons for thinking we should NOT be as reasonable as possible." Most don't appreciate the humor.
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/04/2001 12:39:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 8/4/2001 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes is my master and I am P.I., his prophet. Thus saith the Modes:
doc said (doc will continue to be represented inside quote lines):
quote:
Modes points out the element of subjectivity in "abduction." From this (as I read him) he conjectures that apologetics should perhaps rely less on formal proofs and appeal more to the subjectivity of nonbelievers. I have five responses to this.
1. Pierce granted that "abduction" -- postulating a state of affairs to render a "surprising fact" expected -- is largely subjective. Since there are an infinity of possible "states of affairs" we might postulate, how can we how to postulate close to the truth? His answer was that we have to assume at the outset that we are wired for truth. There can be no absolute dichotomy between ontology and epistemology (he was vehemently opposed to Cartesianism). Evidence of this is hard-wiring is seen in the fact that we all assume we can know truth (even skeptics assume this, though inconsistently), and our scientific theories work. I thus agree with Pierce, as did Bertrand Russell (on the prior probability thing), Whitehead ("reformed subjectivist principle") and others. We are able to, at least at times, "guess" in the right direction (Pierce admitted "guessing" is a large part of "abduction"). And, therefore, I would first question the degree to which Modes plays logic and subjectivity off against each other.
Modes spaketh hither:
R1. It seems to keep this all IN House for Christians, we might say that our being wired for truth is internal to the "imago dei" which remains a personal and subjective category. We are intended to relate to God and so we are wired to relate to God. God being the Truth and us having a desire or and a telos in that Truth. I do not "play logic and subjectivity off against each other." Rather I play the logic that ASSUMES OBJECTIVITY off against our actual subjectivity and the limits that that places on said logic. We admit to Objective reality/Truth as the basis for a search for truth, but we equally admit that we are incapable of expressing it fully. This is a necessary humility which I find lacking all to often amongst hard-core logicians.
quote:
2. Abduction was only the first step we need to take as we try to grasp truth. Pierce argued that it must be followed by induction (generalizing experience) and deduction (striving for internal consistency). Postulated "states of affairs" that render surprising facts less surprising must be further confirmed with evidence and logic, for, as said, there are other "states of affairs" that could also explain the "surprising fact." Formal logic and rigorous evidential investigation thus do not conflict with abduction, with its subjective elements. To the contrary, productive logic and evidential investigation are always about something -- they presuppose a prior "abduction."
Modal reply:
R2. WHAT we abduct, WHAT experiences we generalize, HOW we generalize, and what counts as "internally consistent" are not self-evident. These are all perspectival and many now recognize that "What counts" in these terms has been determined by who has power and something to lose by things changing. Who gets to say what and whether something is surprising is important. Contexts provide language systems for these emergent "surprises" where the very same event in another context many not be surprising at all, but rather expected… and thereby not in need of further explanation. What must happen is that the "rules of the game" must be agreed upon to some degree. Doc seems to assume a sort of "common-sense realism", but this functionally reduces to "doc’s experience of reality as the particular person doc is, has been and will be." My proposal is that rather than try to convince someone else that they ought to interpret reality very similarly to the way I do, I start with their own reality and show them the inevitable need they have for Christ from INSIDE their own version of "common-sense realism." Sin, salvation, repentance can all be personalized, and furthermore a concrete encounter with the living Lord Jesus Christ can be facilitated. Doc, I love your book "Letters" but venture to guess that it is really only effective for a certain class of people who have a certain value for, and accomplishment in, Western higher education (AND reject the criticisms of post-modernism!). I am wondering about a more truly subjective meta-strategy grounded in the reality of the Creator-creation relation itself. Now that I think about it "Letters" does this when you speak of needs not existing meaninglessly. We have desires, and they are able to be fulfilled. It then becomes a matter of intensifying certain desires, even to the point of despair so that the person will yield to God in Christ. Already here, however, we have assumed that there is an Absolute which gives meaning to all things. LOGIC does not ground faith in reason, rather logic MIGHT help eliminate certain obstacles which stand in the way of a certain kind of person being open to encountering Christ personally. Though it will not do this for the post-modern mind, a Subjective Absolute is needed.
quote:
3. If science operated the way Modes is recommending contemporary apologetics should operate, we'd never get anywhere. Science assumes that original hypotheses, while initially subjective, are part of the reasoning process, not opposed to the reasoning process. Why should apologetic reasoning -- or any theological reasoning for that matter -- be less rigorous than any other science? We are ourselves looking for truth as much as the unbeliever, and our look for truth is the more fundamental concern than trying to convince the unbeliever.
Modes says:
This is a cheap shot. I am not saying that logic is opposed to faith, but that faith surely goes beyond logic--and can furthermore stand inspite of logic. I am also not proposing that we lack rigor. This should go without saying unless you think I lack rigor in my thinking. The last line I disagree with as well. In Christ, we have encountered the Absolute Truth. We cannot reflect it in its infinite magnitude, but to say that we still seek is to overlook what has been found. We are called to lead others to this by facilitating an encounter with Christ. We are to give them the bad news, which they already know if they are honest with themselves--and then the good news, in a way that is personally applicable to them and still faithful to what is Absolutely True, that is Christ. This may entail some logical discussion for some, but for many it will not.
As for science, yes, it works at the practical level, but it has as many problems as theology at the theoretical level, where the logic is said to be so clear and rigorous. Just as scientists "go with what works" I am suggesting that, in a cross-cultural and especially post-modern context, "what works" is changing for theology as well as science. What is true in Newtonian physics is "true enough" to build a sturdy house, but not true enough for the entire field of quantum physics. What "works" also admits of being contextual, even in science. As Stanley Grenz recently argued, "Why should theologians become scientists?…Because scientists are (have become) theologians!" He was pointing to the massive amount of upheaval in the so called "foundations" of science in the last century.
quote:
4. The fact that the warfare worldview renders "the otherwise surprising fact" of evil in the world intelligible is only one of the reasons for holding it. We can also appeal to other criteria such as our reasons for affirming Scripture as true, combined with our exegesis which shows that the warfare worldview arises out of Scripture. Not only this, but I and Paul Eddy have also collected two chapters worth of more objective arguments and evidence for the reality of good and evil spirits. This was originally going to be part of Satan and the Problem of Evil, but was deleted for space considerations. I am not naive in thinking that the arguments and evidence for spirits is self-interpretative or that it would convince all. But this much is true of all evidence in any field.
Modes agrees: Exactly. That is my point.
quote:
5. All said and done, I largely agree with Mode's more Kierkegaardian emphasis on appealing to peoples' subjective needs and conflicts to render the Gospel plausible. People are not only brains. But, having said that, people have brains, and many of them (all, I suspect, to some degree) need to have things make sense in the head before they can embrace it with their heart.
Modes says:
I would only add (and I am sure you’d agree) to this that nonbelievers do not only need to gain knowledge that "makes sense" to them, and upon which they can act, but much more fundamentally and persuasively, they MUST encounter the risen Lord in their own lives and thereby become imitators of Christ through an experienced relationship which is much more real to them than life itself. Encountering Christ personally is the most objective event that could ever happen to a person and is the only thing that will truly transform them from one degree of glory to another…the head/heart split falters here, the heart was understood to be both the center of willing/thinking and the center of feeling/emotion all together in the time of Christ. These are not really different things and the dividing of them creates the potential that one might fool oneself into THINKING they have become a Christian because they now "think and believe" differently, but they have not yielded themselves to that with their whole self/will. This is the real danger SK saw and that I still see with overly rationalistic approaches to faith. This is also why it matters to me quite little really that Mephi has acknowledged Openness to Open Theism. He was already open to it to the extent that he was honestly pursuing the truth through dialogue with us. Furthermore, this hasn’t really changed his way of BEING a Christian, it has only strengthened his way of THINKING about metaphysical issues related to faith. Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy for Mephi because I think he is right, but I was equally happy with him as I saw him LIVE right (as much as one can tell through these sorts of relations) through the course of past interactions. THAT is what is really real. See my signature.
quote:
So, I think the best approach is to shoot in both directions. Reason with the head, Preach and Love to the heart, and trust the Holy Spirit to use both to convince the unconvinced and win the lost.
Hard core LOGIC and passionate FAITH. That's what Christus Victory Ministry is all about.
Doc
ps. I have been repeatedly accused of being overly rationalistic, with some merit. I always respond: "what are your reasons for thinking we should NOT be as reasonable as possible." Most don't appreciate the humor.
Modes: I hope this can be read "hard core logic in the service of faith," or "faith seeking understanding" as Anselm put it. Yes, shoot in both directions, WHEN led to do so, the discernment of the Spirit’s leading is the decisive thing for me. Perhaps the difference between you and I here is that you seem to advocate proactively going ahead and doing the shooting, and then trusting the Spirit to work in that, and I am sure god honors that. I tend to be more responsive for the sake of conservation of energy! By this I mean, through discernment and God’s prompting, THEN I would move ahead and use the tools necessary and provided by God (spiritual gifts function here often) for the next task at hand. Again, we probably agree on these last points more than I have acknowledged.
"Logic is overrated...it is only a tool to serve a relevant personal search for truth...nevertheless you will be assimilated. resistence is futile...just ask Mephi."--the neotheistic borg
Edited by - Pseudo-Intellectual on 08/04/2001 3:34:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
churchmouse522
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163
| Posted 8/4/2001 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | You crack me up Modes.
"If we agree to search for Truth, we do violence to that search any time we silence a voice." Modes of Thought | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/4/2001 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes said:
quote:
This is also why it matters to me quite little really that Mephi has acknowledged Openness to Open Theism. He was already open to it to the extent that he was honestly pursuing the truth through dialogue with us. Furthermore, this hasn’t really changed his way of BEING a Christian, it has only strengthened his way of THINKING about metaphysical issues related to faith. [Meph's Note: VERY GOOD STATEMENT!!]
Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy for Mephi because I think he is right, but I was equally happy with him as I saw him LIVE right (as much as one can tell through these sorts of relations) through the course of past interactions. THAT is what is really real.
Word up, man.
PS: The Dudechild thing caught me offguard. LOL
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/5/2001 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes writes:
I love your book "Letters" but venture to guess that it is really only effective for a certain class of people who have a certain value for, and accomplishment in, Western higher education (AND reject the criticisms of post-modernism!). I am wondering about a more truly subjective meta-strategy grounded in the reality of the Creator-creation relation itself…"
In response, it seems to me that no matter what starting point one assumes, there will be people you can speak to effectively and people you can’t. So far as I can see, the "more truly subjective meta-strategy grounded in the reality of the Creator-creation relation itself" Modes proposes is not very different than the strategy I used in Letters from a Skeptic (in fact, as Modes notes, I utilized this very stategy in Letters).
Both approaches (if they can even be called different "approaches") are based on assumptions of univerality, and both will appeal to different types of appeal (which demonstrates that we should use both).
The Modes approach ASSUMES a certain universality to the needs of the human heart and thus talks to it. The more rationalistic approach ASSUMES a certain universality to the reason of the mind and talks to it. No difference. The one appeals more to some types, perhaps someone based on culture. The other appeals to other types, perhaps somewhat based on culture.
Footnote: Interestingly enough, I’ve been told Letters has been a very effective evangelism tool in China the last year (it was translated into Chinese two years ago). I just am not sure that the thinking processes of people in China -- or anywhere -- are so distinct from western peoples that we can't find common ground. Modes at least assumes that the experiences of "inner need" are similar across the globe. THAT is a claim to universality. How then can you in principle criticize the universality of the claim that people tend to be logical. (This is not to say that every logical argument will be equally effectiv eto each person or each culture. There are many variables that decide the plausibility of an argument).
In the end, iI don't see that Mode's disagreement with me is over anything more that whether it is more evangelistically advantageous to appeal to the desires of the heart or the reason of the head. Yet he agrees we should shoot in both directions, so maybe theres no disagreement at all.
Love and peace
Doc
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/05/2001 6:38:04 PM
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/05/2001 6:38:32 PM
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/05/2001 6:39:13 PM
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/05/2001 6:40:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/5/2001 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg, first off, thanks for getting back to me. I value your time and appreciate the fact that your investing in this conversation, perhaps beyond what your think is particularly useful. Bear with me for just a bit more is all I ask, this stuff is pretty important to me right now. Maybe I’m going through "a phase," but then, it seems an important one to go through.
This should probably be titled: "Modes’ turn to engage in useless rants and raves."
Several concessions:
1. Yes, I think we agree more than disagree, I am just pushing an issue that is important to me about relevance and theology in general. Meph has been wrestling with this a bit too lately, from what I gather, though his issues may be different than mine. So maybe you can reassure us both that this (theology) is worth doing and we can work through HOW it needs to be done on our own (though I’d appreciate your input there as well). Meph has always gagged on the posts that get political, so he might want to stop reading up here ;)
2. I should not have used the rhetoric of "language games." That calls to mind Lindbeck and all the issues surounding his strategy, which I do not accept. Rather, I should maybe have brought in Ricoeur. Evangelicals need to recognize his insight that texts, particularly ones as rich as those in Scripture, contain a "surplus of meaning." Of course, this is nothing new, most of the history of the church has acknowledged a multiple layered "meaning-fullness" in biblical texts. (As well as LIMITS to what a text can mean.) My concern is that there are ethical implications for which meanings are untilized in a text. Power becomes an issue here. The most important issue of power in the Church is that of discernment, because here we claim to have GOD’s opinion about a text, at least for our particular application/context. For me a CRITICAL QUESTION becomes: What is the Spirit of God leading us to do with Which texts in our contexts?
3. Because of my concern for power (and discernment), as just mentioned, I probably should not have placed this argument in the context of "post-modernism" but rather a form of liberationism, which I find to be overwhelmingly biblical. Again, my error which could (and almost did!) lead to HUGE tangents. Sorry.
God is trying to tear down some walls but the "wrong" people have power and are controlling the meaning of some key texts so as to keep them ineffective in transforming the church in some very important ways (racism, classism, sexism, etc. all come quickly to mind). This is an old strategy all too familiar to the church at large. We are all implicated, and much discernment is needed. This is not simply a matter of rigorous exegesis, but rather of Spirit-ual discernment corporately, but leadership must be open to God’s moving in these directions. I praise God that locally the leadership at my church, most of them anyway, seem open to this sort of moving of God. The top two create the critical mass for change and they are a true blessing to our body! This gives me room and reason to hope for GREAT things for us! But the thinking on these issues is very complex and difficult.
4. My engagement of "Letters" was not particularly helpful, as you showed. Given who you are and who your father was, it was perfect insofar as it was effective, and that it clearly was and is for many today. Additionally there is a great strength in "Letters" in terms of the discernment involved in the process and the personal relating that was truly as foundational and convincing as the arguments themselves. So I take that back. I was just wondering what a "Letter’s from a Post-Modern Skeptic" might look like; I still am wondering that. Perhaps I will have the opportunity in my lifetime to engage in a personal exchange along those lines and get a book published under the above title! LOL!
My bone to pick with the most typical of evangelical apologists is that they simply run the numbers and hope that the unbeliever finds the argument to be logically sound. Incidentally they impress the lesser-educated evangelicals and improve their "status" as Christians within the evangelical church. But educated people know that BOTH sides of any debate can defend rigorously their respective positions, with logical coherence and sophistication. Our finitude and particularity condemn us to not be able to get beyond a certain degree of probablility, when it comes to Reason. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is different! As Paul says in I Cor. 2:1-5: "When I came to you brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." I see THIS sort of apologetic happening at church when people are so blessed by the presence of God in worship that they are converted simply by the power encounter there with the Lord! Kierkegaard believed that we could help people into THAT sort of encounter. One that leaves our logic in the dust and overwhelms our capacity for taking in REALITY. THAT is the sort of apologetic I am interested in seeing done by evangelicals. I think, though, that my problem is only abstract, and not actual. Evangelicals DO that sort of apologetic everyday when they are led by God to share their testimony with one who is ripe for the harvest. Perhaps what I REALLY want to see done is for the friggin’ INTELLECTUALS (myself included) to start VALIDATING that sort of discernment so people feel more impowered and adequate to DO that ministry as God leads. There is a VERY false pretense that the super-educated highly intellectual and theologically sophisticated Christians are the REALLY EFFECTIVE Christians. Maybe that’s what’s really got me riled up. It just ain’t so folks. The other problem that goes hand in hand here is that those same people who need to be empowered to TRUST the leading of God and share their testimony need to know what we intellectuals know…THAT THAT is the REAL power! They have been duped into thinking that they are not educated enough to be REALLY effective at evangelism and they have been sold the myth of certainty so that if they CANNOT answer an intellectual question with an irrefutable response, then they have somehow failed. The sick friggin’ irony is that NO SUCH RESPONSES EXIST!!! Ultimately, they will either encounter Christ or they will not (my faith tells me that all will at least encounter Christ) and from there, they will either repent and have faith, or reject Christ and be offended, both at Christ and Christians.
Unhelpful Personal Note (with formal request to Greg):
I get sick and tired of people bantering back and forth about theological insignificancies and neglecting the REAL work that God is calling us to! SO MANY issues CAN be debated, in fact, they ALL can be debated. At some point shouldn’t there be an ethical "OUGHT NOT" regarding the importance of such talk? Should we be allowing ourselves to talk ourselves silly without actually going out and putting these questions and ideas TO WORK for the Kingdom? I know that ultimately these questions can only be answered by each person before God, but for God’s sake lets start asking this question too! BTW: Greg, I think I need a vacation. How about the week before the 26th of August. I have a German exam on that day. Maybe THAT’S what I really need. A VACATION from theology!
Informative Personal Note for those who care: This might fall under the evangelical category "What has God been doing in your life lately?":
Lately I have been given convictions about issues of justice; issues of power and who has it and what that means to those who do not. My concern here is primarily about power in the church; which just insures that it be all the more sickening to observe. Some of it has to do with those I work with, some with those I live with. But as a matter of faith, God is calling me to KEEP IT REAL! The abstractions are driving me crazy, and my neighbors don’t seem to benefit a hoot from it. They need a friggin' car that works--not a theology lesson.
For those who might pray for me, this last note is what I need help with. (RO, that'd be you, where are you anyway?)
In the end, I think I am struggling with how we can capture more of REALITY in the doing of theology. We got logic in spades, that's good, we need MUCH more REALITY.
"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
Edited by - ModesofThought on 08/05/2001 11:18:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/6/2001 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes: First, you are exceedingly odd. You refer to yourself sometimes in the third person. And are you the same as Pseudo-intellectual? Sometimes PI writes as you, though sometimes he/she/it writes about you in the third person -- but you do that to yourself, so what does it prove.
Need some medication there ol'buddy?
I have no problem with anything you just said above, except two things: a) I am not convinced the "post-modern skeptic" is all that different from the "modern" or "pre-modern" skeptic. They are more relativistic, more inconsistent, more self-centered, less able to think rigorously (in short, the western brain is turning to mush). But, though they deny it, they end up asking "why believe x" despite themselves, and when you can give logic and evidence it has force to them -- again, despite their claims to relativism.
Second, I think your acquaintance with evangelica apologetics has been limited to the Josh McDowell variety. Try reading some NT Wright, Ben Witherington, Alvin Plantinga... The problem, I think, is not rational apologetics, but apologetics that has not been rational enough.
Got to run all of a sudden.
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/6/2001 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | |
So basically what your saying is, you didn't read my post.
Just because someone is concerned about relevance and power dose not mean that they are less critical or less rational. Just that they are trying to pay attention to MORE IMPORTANT things than simply whether the friggin' math all works out. There are LOTS of ways to run the numbers, as many as there are philosophers, theologians, hell--even physicists! You admit that "certainty" is a myth, but you are SO reluctant to acknowledge that the logical schemes DO SERVE SOMEBODYS BEST INTERESTS! Your seemingly rejection of these things out of hand is disheartening and disillusioning. Did you just over look it(I hope! Cause really, I KNOW you know better.)?
"Justice preceeds Truth" Check it out. Maybe reread my previous post more carefully while your at it.
Don't forget, the TRUTH is a Person who has called us to obey, not the Almighty Idea that is drawing us to think Itself.
Greg, none of this is a commentary on how you in particular do theology per se, but rather represent my own concerns for methods of approach to doing theology in my little corner of the world. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.
"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 8/6/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Forgive my trespass.
I could be wrong as two left shoes. But, I think what Modes is advocating is primarily threefold...
1) A radical return to truly TRINITARIAN theologizing and ministry.
In other words, instead of giving mere lipservice to the idea of the Holy Spirit operating in our apologetics or ministering, we should really have FAITH in the Holy Spirit's ability to "show up" and do something. We place way too much faith in our ability to REASON out thing, and we forget how IRRATIONAL many people can be. Far more people deny rationality than deny their feelings. By truly being open to the Spirit (being Spirit-led) we have a greater opportunity to give context to an opportunity where a profound existential encounter can take place. This is not to displace rational apologetics. This is an HUMBLE understanding that it takes more than that...and one does not supplant the other.
2) Full acknowledgement that foundationalism (in the strict Enlightenment meaning) is DEAD as the dodo.
Admitting this logically entails some of the things that Modes is bringing up, as far as the language games and power ideas. It means that we must look at our structures of rationality and really see who is being ultimately benefited from them. SOMEONE is being marginalized at all times by our thinking. And we'd be foolhardy to think otherwise. By, at least, acknowledging the possibility of this, we would be exhibiting lots of epistemological humility as well as an awareness of our DIRE NEED for the Spirit-led existence! Asking God what the heck he's doing in a certain area and how we can help His agenda. Does this deny hardcore rationality and logic? Heck, no. What it does is put it in its rightful place.
3) DOING WHAT YOU KNOW TO DO!! (The Biggie!)
Are you LIVING your Christianity or are you just passively "being" a Christian? This is what I think Modes means by keeping it real. Example. True story. A seminary friend of mine were at Denny's late one night. We were talking about all types of biblical and theological issues. From the Incarnation to tithing. At the other end of the establishment was a mother with two teenage kids and one was obviously somewhat retarted. As we waited for our food, all of a sudden, the retarded youngster began to vomit all over their table and himself. It was a horrid sight and the smell soon became a tad overwhelming. People began looking and talking about the smell. The mother obviously quite embarrassed cleaned up her child as best as she could and left the Denny's. My friend and I looked at each other and the other people in the Denny's and quickly left after her. I felt such a love for that child and her mother, I feel it rather unexplainable. She was helping her child to the car. My friend and I asked her if there was anything that we could do for her...if she needed anything. She said that she was okay. We then asked her if it were ok for us to pray for her son. She said ok. We LAID HANDS ON HIM on a clean area and we prayed for his healing and the mother's strength. The mother was visibly touched emotionally by our gesture. She thanked us and went on our way. We were the ONLY people in that place who lifted a finger to help this woman. Not one other person even tried. Not one. My friend and I were in the bathroom washing our hands afterwards, and then something occurred to me, very suddenly. I knew it was from the Lord. I turned to my friend and said "You know what? If we'd have just sat at our table or moved to another one, without trying to help that woman and the kid, EVERYTHING that we've been talkin' about tonight...ALL our theological training wouldn't have meant a damn thing. We'd be less than nothing." He looked at me, paused, and then agreed.
THIS, my friends, is what I feel is the heart of Modes' angst. Fellow theologians, what are we DOING besides reading and writing books, articles, and commenting about one another's positions? Are we LIVING examples of Christ? Can we TRULY say that we are MORE like Christ now than when we FIRST believed?? Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about? We need a reality check! Doc, I think the point that Modes is trying to make is that in the Orthodoxy-Orthopraxis tension, FAR too many evangelicals spend time trying to work out the Orthodoxy in MINUTE detail rather than applying in praxis the BROAD STROKES that orthodoxy has already provided. Or even worse, in many cases in trying to solidify our orthodoxy, we DENY ITS ESSENTIALS at the same time! Many of the spiritual and ethical commands of Jesus don't necessitate one to have a certain metaphysical idea. Darnit, JUST DO WHAT YOU KNOW TO DO! One of my favorite verses:
Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
I did a sermon on this. Now how friggin SIMPLE is this? It's quite simple. But, as usual, it's the simple things that get overlooked. So very often love, justice, and mercy are NOT EVIDENCED by the Church, even some of it's greatest theologians. Just think of all the power plays and sinful nonsense that has existed JUST IN the openness debate alone!
From what I gather, Modes is basically asking all of us to stop being so darn esoteric all the time and DO something with these expensive degrees we've accumulated. Yes, we can deal with theoretical issues...and we must, because sound practice should always have a good theory base. But how can we have a sound theory base if we are not in touch enough with real people and real situations to ask the right questions? Military tacticians and strategists who don't have a good understanding of how things ACTUALLY ARE on the front lines will never be able design strategies with optimum effectiveness. It's reality check time.
**********************************
I think Modes and I are quite along the same lines in many ways. What I find so interesting is that I believe Modes and I are disillusioned with the SAME ESSENTIAL PROBLEM in theology, but only from different points of view. As such, I understand just how he feels. It sucks. And I'm praying for you, man. Doc, I'm nobody. But I'm asking anyway. Do me a favor and give that man his time off, if you can. I'd appreciate it.
Peace,
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/06/2001 10:36:31 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/6/2001 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | PRAISE THE LORD!
Halleluiah!!
THANK YOU!
YES, that is what I am drivin' at. We cannot afford to do our theology in a vacuum. I really do know how cliche that sounds, but I can't think of better words right now.
Meph, you read me well. I really appreciate that. I was feeling like I was sawing off the limb I'm sittin' on. Thanks for the story too, it illustrates the issue very well. I would just add, now when you and your friend go back to thinking things through again, that experience you just had should SPEAK into the theologizing itself. It counts as important DATA for theology because it is what God is doing to, with and through YOU. What could be more relevant?
You ROCK my friend! Is this thing with Greg a generational deal?
"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 8/6/2001 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | I did read your post Modes. Sorry if my comments didn't communicate to you that I take it seriously. Nice slam on me though.
I'm sorry if you and Mephi just aren't engaging me right now. I must be missing something, but frankly, the points you two are making seem rather banal to me. Maybe I've been over-exposed to this way of thinking.
[Interlude: I sat under George Lindbeck, Paul Holmer and other Post-liberals throughout my graduate education. I've read more about the narratives, meta-narratives, non-foundationalism, anti-foundationism, post-foundationalism, language-games etc... than I care to admit. And it has always struck me that many of their writings can be interpreted in one of two ways.
*#1 when this movement is read as saying something radically new, it is incoherent, degenerating into inconsistent de-constructionism/ relativism.
*#2 when this movement is read as simply acknowleding the limitations and conditioned nature of human perception, it doesn't say anything that people have been aware of since Kant -- and really since the Skeptics of Greek antiquity.
I had this same experience reading your two postings Modes. I initially read you along the lines of interpretation #1 and composed a rather lengthy exposition of the inconsistencies of post-modernism. But upon re-reading it, I opted for interpretation #2 and gave the rather quick response I gave. ]
Having read you and Mephi, I still don't see what the big hub bub is about. Here's my convictions: see if they line up with yours.
1) The Holy Spirit uses many means to reach people, including witnessing to the heart and witnessing to the head. It's advantageous to use reasoning to appeal to the head, but it won't come to anything unless the Holy Spirit is using it to change a person's perspective. Modes and Mephi are right.
2) Yes all historical reasoning is culturally conditioned and limited in every way all human episteomology is limited. But we can still talk about good and bad historical reasoning, metaphysical reasoning, and the like -- and we can talk about this with non-believers. Their critiques can check our perspectives and us theirs. But we can talk. And the evidence can be compelling. (It IS compelling. Otherwise I and many other rational people wouldn't be believers). Again, the Holy Spirit is necessary. But that doesn't render reasoning superfluous, as both Modes and Mephi acknowledge.
3) There is an indispensibly important role which demonstrating the works of God plays in apologetics. While Paul reasoned with people, he also performed miracles in Jesus name. I wholly agree that we can't spend all our time in the ivory towers of cerebral reasoning -- as important as that is. We need to be PRACTICING FAITH in works of love and in being open to supernatural signs and wonders. We need to experirence God for ourselves and testify of his reality. As our culture tends more and more into this "New Age," where the supernatural is accepted, this form of witnessing becomes more and more important. I preach this and try to practice this all the time. I agree with you guys.
4) I do not see how any of this, or anything else, exposes that"foundationalism is as dead as a do-do" -- unless you mean by "foundationalism" the appeal to self=evident a priori truths that are obvious to all who are reasonable. The appeal to the need you believe to exist in every human heart is an appeal to foundational knowledge. So is the appeal to a RATIONALITY you believe to exist in the human mind. I think both are correct. And I don't see where we disagree.
Now, if your saying something more radical than this -- something along the lines of "all truth claims are power moves" (not just possibly influenced by claims to power) -- then I have a very different critique to make. But I didn't hear you as saying anything like this.
I agree that these observations, IF TRUE (note the truth claims!), expose some popular apologetics approaches as niave. (Though many popular apologists, such as Shaeffer and Lewis, were very much in line with the kind of apologetics YOU are advocating). But beyond this, I don't see what the big deal is with all of this.
Tell me what I'm missing.
But please don't get ad hominem again by accusing me of not reading a post before I respond. That's not nice.
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/06/2001 6:07:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 99 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:20 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 |
|
|