Tag Archive for 'philosophy'

Choices And Significance

Published by Bryan November 27, 2007 in General and Philosophy. 4 Comments

Tomorrow I have to hand in a short 1500 word paper on Charles Taylor’s work Malaise of Modernity. The book is actually a transcript of Taylor’s Massey Lecture which for those non-Canadians is pretty much the premier lecture to be given in Canada. It’s therefore an easy work to read, but one that is surprisingly difficult when you try to look at it in detail. I won’t use this space to go into a detailed look at what Taylor is saying in this lecture, I just did that in a paper, but I do want to look briefly at one argument he makes regarding choice and significance.

In the chapter titled Inescapable Horizons he says the following:

But in some forms this discourse slides toward an affirmation of choice itself. All options are equally worthy, because they are freely chosen, and it is choice that confers worth. The subjectivist principle underlying soft relativism is at work here. But this implicitly denies the existence of a pre-existing horizon of significance, whereby some things are worthwhile and others less so, and still others not at all, quite anterior to choice. But then the choice of sexual orientation loses any special significance. It is on a level with any other preferences, like that for taller or shorter sexual partners, or blonds or brunettes. No one would dream of making discriminating judgments about these preferences, but that’s because they are all without importance. They really do just depend on how you feel. Once sexual orientation comes to be assimilated to these, which is what happens when one makes choice the crucial justifying reason, the original goal, which was to assert the equal value of this orientation is subtly frustrated. Difference so asserted becomes insignificant…

I find the argument in this section fascinating. Now Taylor chose here to use homosexuality as his example, but you could substitute any ongoing argument where one side holds up choice as their justification (think abortion). If Taylor’s argument is right here, then choice cannot be used as a justification because it has no significance. Lets work briefly through what his argument is.

Those who believe in subjectivism will argue to Taylor that homosexuality (to continue to use Taylor’s example) is simply a choice of sexual orientation (this is NOT the argument that all homosexuals use, I think abortion would be a better example since many if not most homosexuals do not see it as a choice but we’ll follow Taylor here). One may choose to be straight, or choose to be gay. But if it is only a choice, asks Taylor, why is it significant?

There is nothing special about a choice, we make them all day long without a second thought as to their significance. Unless one simply wants their sexual orientation determined by a cost benefit analysis, or how you feel at the moment, there has to be something more then pure choice that matters in some decisions. There must be a significance attached to the decision. For Taylor (although in the above quote he doesn’t get into it) that significance has to be morality.

Arguments regarding homosexuality and abortion must be moral arguments, not simply arguments abut the right to choose. If those who support these actions simply argue them based on their right to choose them they have already lost the debate because it’s lost all significance. If it’s just a choice and has no significance, then it shouldn’t matter if one chooses not to.

However, do they talk as if it’s only a choice? Do you ever hear someone say: I choose to sleep in 5 minutes today, then I choose to have toast for breakfast, then I chose to have an abortion, before choosing to watch some TV before dinner. It’s crazy to think about someone talking that way (although I assume there are some that do).

The debates on homosexuality and abortion have to be moral debates because they are areas where both sides (whether they admit it or not is another question) put significance on it. Both sides know it’s more then about a choice, there is more at stake here and thats why there is argument. If a choice in these matters is at all worth making, it must be more then simply a choice, something must be at stake.

A little further on Taylor summarizes this when he says:

Which issues are significant, I do not determine. If I did, no issue would be significant. But then the very ideal of self-choosing as a moral ideal would be impossible.

Paradigm Shifts In Protestant Theology?

Published by Bryan November 13, 2007 in General, Religion and Philosophy. 11 Comments

It might surprise some, but one of my favourite works of philosophy is T.S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not because I agree with everything he says (I do agree with quite a bit, but not all) but I do think he at least offers an empirical explanation of what has happened in the past - even if you decided to reject the possible consequences to an understanding of truth that seem to arise from his theory.

Since reading Kuhn’s work last year, I have wondered how well his theory holds in areas beyond science; particularly theology. This question was once again reawakened this week when reading Adrian Warnock post on Piper’s new book on justification. In that post he said “Men as epoch-shattering as Luther only come along very rarely.”

Kuhn’s theory, briefly and admitingly with a lot of details left out, revolves around the concept of scientific paradigms. A paradigm is the dominate way of thinking on a particular subject. The classical example is the geocentric model. Although there were problems inherit in the theory that were known, there was not a search for a new theory, but a continual attempt to “fix up” the current one. The lack of search for a new theory is partly because it takes a brilliant stroke of insight to break out of a paradigm, but also because those within the paradigm attempt to keep that current paradigm “in power” sometimes knowingly and sometimes passively. Eventually however the problems with the current paradigm become so numerous that someone is able to see them and break out of the paradigm, proposing a new way of looking at the problem. If this new paradigm can better explain the situation then in time a “paradigm shift” will occur where the old one is tossed out and the new one embraced. This is what happened in the shift to the heliocentric model.

It’s been my belief that this is very similar to what happened during the Reformation. The dominate system of the Catholic church’s understanding of justification did make sense of large portions of scripture, however it was clear that it couldn’t explain all of it. Attempts were made to fix it up by various theologians (doctrinal development) but it became increasingly clear that the system itself needed changing. This movement to change things was repressed for a long time, but eventually it was overthrown by the Protestant understanding of justification which became the new paradigm.

There are of course differences between science and theology paradigms. In science the old paradigm falls away and nearly everyone moves to the new one. With theology a large number of people will move to the new one, but the old one often still remains, people unwilling to give up their beliefs. This, I think, is because in science, people are searching for truth, while in theology people are convinced they are having truth delivered to them and therefore makes it much harder to give up a paradigm.

This then brings us back to Adrian’s quote. Could a man like Luther actually arise today? Can the protestant paradigm actually be shattered 500 years after it began to come about and be accepted by protestants? I simply don’t see it happening. If a person was to arise today and directly challenge the protestant understanding of scripture (I’m just beginning to look into N.T. Wright at the moment but am no where near ready to say if he’s doing this) they would not be able to convince a majority of protestants to shift to the new paradigm. I don’t think that there are many protestants who see issues with their understanding of justification yet. Until that happens there will not be a massive paradigm shift and, because we are dealing with theology, it makes it all that much harder for a shift to occur.

Philosophy, Theology, And The Church

Published by Bryan October 30, 2007 in Religion, Emerging Church and Philosophy. 14 Comments

As a philosophy student, I often have conversations with friends regarding the place of philosophy in the Church. This week the topic has been on my mind once again after one of my philosophy professors commented in class about the lack of theologians doing philosophy on the academic level today. I was able to bring up the counter example of John Milbank right away, and after some thought Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolferstroff. There are a few others but not many.

Christian today don’t care about philosophy. I hate to say it but it’s true. Have you heard of these three people I mentioned? Have you read anything by them? I’m studying philosophy and although I know a bit about two of them (I know nothing about one of them besides the name), have read a book about Milbank’s Radical Orthodox movement, and listened to an interview with him, I myself don’t know much at all about the current “Christian philosophical scene.”

Reactionary Theology
The only place for philosophy among most evangelicals is when it is proved wrong by Christian apologists. We have more then enough of these in the church; those people who are not willing to give a sympathetic reading to any philosopher, but instead read what other Christians have written about them, and then go on the offensive against them. There have been some good Christian apologists who understand the philosophical systems out there and can interact with them, but walk into a Christian bookstore and the books your likely to see are usually surface treatments of philosophy that take a few potshots at a particular philosopher and then assumes nothing by them (or their followers) could ever be said back in response.

I’m not sure if this is a result of the lack of interest of philosophy in the church, or if the lack of interest in philosophy in the church has caused it’s superficial treatment among Christian academia. One thing for sure however is that if you mention philosophy in many churches you get weird stares.

I don’t bother trying to discuss philosophy with people in my church anymore, it seemed like a loosing battle. When I tell them that one of my majors is philosophy I often hear; “Why would you ever take that?” which in and of itself is not an usual comment as most people in and outside the church don’t understand the allure of a degree that will not directly lead to employment, but when it’s said in the church there is the hint of disgust with the whole discipline.

A similar disgust exists with theology. Although in this case it is less pronounced it is still noticeably there. It manifests itself in comments such as; “Well I don’t care what who and who said, I just know what my bible says.” or “You can believe whatever you want, but I’ll follow the bible on this…” The idea that a well thought out, logical, position on a biblical doctrine doesn’t matter. Somehow if one reads theologians and thinks through biblical doctrines they will cease to take the scriptures seriously and be lead astray by men. Christians should attempt to understand scripture in a vacuum.

I don’t want to get into all the things that is wrong with this view (as if someone can interpret anything in a vacuum) but to point out that this fear of both philosophy and theology is founded on the fact that the church has come to believe that it will lead away from the truth of scripture and to the lies of man. There is a general sense the all “academic” disciplines (theology, philosophy, history, science…etc.) will lead a person away from the truth.

An Anti-Intellectual Environment
This view has lead to the shattering of the church along the academic line. Many who are within these disciplines feel (and likely are) removed from the rest of their church. I’m speaking of philosophy and theology here since they are my areas of interest, but those in the universities who are studying sciences face a similar fate. The Christian who studies biology is continually questioned as to their “orthodoxy” on creation/evolution and is always eyed with suspicion that their science may replace their bible. There is of course reason for the church to be cautious about academia, but it’s gone past caution into full bore paranoia in many cases. Christians should be leaders in all these fields, but instead the church more often then not shows through its attitude that it wants a separation from them.

Because of my studies I have spent a lot of time questioning the Christian faith. Since I began to study theology on my own my theology has been shifting away from the typical baptist theology I began in and toward a more Reformed/Anglican/Emerging Church understanding (when I understand exactly what that means I’ll write about it), and my philosophy classes at University have often caused me to question common Christian answers to really complex problems.

As I’m struggling with philosophical and theological questions I should go to my church and ask for advice, but rarely do I do that anymore. When I do the questions are often dismissed, brushed over, or at worst cause a heated exchange as they don’t understand how I could even be questioning such a thing. This does not hold true for everyone in my church, there are some I can discuss theology with, but I keep the circle of people that I do discuss with small and often shy away from discussing the underlying questions that I struggle with. Sometimes this is to protect myself (if my theology is moving away from what my church teaches) and sometimes this is to protect others (I don’t think they have ever considered this before and have no idea what this kind of question will do to their faith). This all however leads to a real rupture in community. The church is the place where theology should be done, where philosophy should be discussed, and where questions from all disciplines should be looked at. The anti-intellectual environment in many evangelical churches has stopped this.

The Intellectual Divide
I’m not sure how this rupture within the church can be fixed. It’s a question I have spent a lot of time thinking on over the past few years because it’s a personal and practical question. If I feel out of place in the local church, that the questions I am asking are not ones that the local church wants to hear or wants to try to find answers for, will I ever be at home in that church? If the local church wants a “no creed but Christ” attitude, and is willing to look with suspicion on those who embrace academic disciplines that may lead to looking at the world in different ways, can there ever be true community?

There is an intellectual divide in evangelical churches. I know I am not alone in feeling it, others I attend University with feel it as well. After years of thinking on the topic I’m still not sure how to go about trying to fix it. At least the Emerging Church is willing to ask questions and seek answers, even if some in the movement get the wrong ones. If there is one thing evangelicals can learn from the Emerging Church, it’s the importance of asking questions and being able to have open discussions on nearly every subject without passing judgment while the conversation is still ongoing.

Changing Church Part. 6

Published by Bryan October 16, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 4 Comments

This is the final part of the Changing Church series. For reference see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Due to the size of this topic, the previous entries in this series have been all over the place. We began in the first part by identifying that a shift is taking place and pointing to some examples of that shift particularly in the Emerging Church. Then in part 2 we looked at how the historical church can be used as a critique of the modern church, and finally we have been examining some ways the evangelical church has begun to embrace its past; looking at its history (part 3), using creeds (part 4), and prayer (part 5). In this entry we will return to the to the beginning of the series and attempt to wrap it up by examining an underlying reason for this shift from an a-historical evangelical tradition to the embracing of a historical understanding of the church.

Reconnecting with Church History
Although there have been various efforts in the last couple hundred years to reconnect with church history, the current trend that we have been discussing has, for the most part, been the recent emerging church attempt. Why has the Emerging Church spearheaded such a movement? I believe there are two answers to this question.

The first was dealt with in the second post in this series; they use earlier church tradition to critique the current evangelical landscape. However, this is still only a surface level answer. There are many ways to critique the current evangelicalism without bringing in church history to the extent some in the Emerging Church wish to. Dissatisfied Evangelicals have critiqued the Evangelical churches philosophy, practices and theology often without really offering a historic critique. The deeper answer appears to lie in part with the postmodern worldview that the emerging church has (depending who you believe and look at) either adapted or is responding to.

The Post-Modern Issue
In a recent entry on this blog, Jasen discussed the relationship between post-modernism and the Emergining Church. Although it is difficult to understand what one means when they say “postmodern” these days, for the purposes of this entry I will define it simply as: “The lack of faith in meta-narratives” which follows Lyotard’s famous definition. What does this mean? Taken in a descriptive sense it means that people no longer believe in grand-overarching stories of the world. No longer for many people, particularly those younger, does communism or capitalism make sense of the world anymore. They are recognized as stories that try to make sense of the world, but can not be held universally true.

Christianity is a meta-narrative. It is a grand story that explains how the world works for everything and everyone, and because of this, it is facing a new attack. The point here is not to judge if the rejection of meta-narratives is correct, but to simply point out that this is a current challenge to Christianity. It is also not to judge if the response to this current attack on Christianity is correct. Christianity has always been under intellectual attack, and has always been devising responses. Some of these responses have done damage to the faith (consider the removing the mystical from Christianity in response to modernity), while others have often upheld it (the scientific research into Christianity also in response to modernity).

If people have begun to believe that there is no over-arching story of how the world works, but all stories are local, what are the Christian faithful to do? How are they to respond to this? There are two possibilities; one is to fight against post-modernist assumptions and show that Christianity is the only true and valid meta-narrative , or one can embrace the destruction of meta-narratives and yet try to maintain their Christian faith.

Moving Forward
If one chooses the second, as many (but not all) in the Emerging Church have done, how can they proceed? One way would be to make Christianity local. Remove it from it’s worldwide position and place it in the local context. This process was begun by Stanley Grenz (See his Renewing The Centre) who sought to make the local church the locus of Christianity. It is still unclear at this point what exactly the results of placing the local church at the forefront of Christianity will entail, but if one puts the focus on the local church, what is each church’s connection to the others? Placing emphasis on the local church disconnects it from the universal church which is how evangelicals view churches as connected.

A way to solve this, is to emphasize the historical connection between churches. This keeps Christianity local in context, but allows for meaningful connection with other local Churches around the world. Although some types of Christianity have done this throughout their history (think of Eastern Orthodox), the evangelical tradition has never emphasized its history as a way of connecting their local churches; it has always relied on a universal notion of the church to create unity.

This, I believe, is the underlying reason for the growing historical interest in the traditions of the church among evangelicals. The need to find a connection to the universal church has come to the forefront for evangelicals, and with the new challenge of post-modernism - evangelicals can no longer fall back to the common line that the universal church provides this connection. For a Christian movement that has never had a robust theology of the church, this new need to discover/create (depending on your view) this process will be slow and difficult. But it has begun and will move forward as long as people continue to lack faith in meta-narratives.

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'philosophy' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'philosophy' tag.

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'philosophy' tag.