Saturday, 02 June 2012
-
A Defense of the Grey Area
By Sharon at She Worships
Last weekend Ike and I were in North Carolina where he officiated the wedding of a friend. While there, we decided to attend a little church down the road for Sunday morning worship. The pastor’s sermon title was “Your Personal Worldview,” and the subject matter kind of ranged all over. However, one of his main take-home points was this: We live in a world that wants everything to be grey, but the truth of the Bible is black and white.
For this pastor, “black and white” equated with Gospel faithfulness, whereas “grey thinking” meant compromise.
On the one hand, I can see where he is coming from. One of the main attributes of post-modernism is the rejection of concrete “Truth with a capital T.” Post-modernism is deeply uncomfortable with any fact that would claim to be universal, and we see this mentality everywhere: There is no right model of family, marriage, sexual orientation, career choice, or general lifestyle. Whatever works for you, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, is acceptable.
Living in a culture of such great pluralism, it is easy to understand why the pastor came to the conclusion he did.
However, I still have to disagree with him. Not only do I think his assessment is incorrect, I think he’s got it backwards. In my opinion, sinful human nature is far more comfortable with the black and white than it is with the grey. Black and white is a default mode for most people, which is why we see this simplistic way of thinking in both conservative and liberal circles alike.
Conservative legalism is an easy target when it comes to accusations of narrow-minded, black and white thinking, but I think the tolerant left are just as guilty. When tolerance is god, then intolerance must be totally rejected. This is an increasingly common ideology in our country, and it is also a very black and white way of seeing the world.
Given the nature of our beings, this black and white default mode should not be surprising. We are finite beings created by an infinite God. We dwell in a Creation that reflects the many attributes of God, and we Christians try to reflect the infinite goodness of God. When a finite being attempts to embody an infinite being, the result can be messy. It’s like trying to zip up an over-packed suitcase–as soon as you stuff one side in, the other side pops out.
As we finite beings pursue and try to reflect the complex yet perfect character of God, there will be times when we reflect some aspects better than others. And in doing so, there will be a temptation to settle there. The aspect of God’s self or teaching that comes easiest to us is the aspect we are tempted to make much of. It can even become a hill to die on, a dividing line by which we measure and judge other Christians. It becomes a lens through which the world is measured in black and white terms.
It is because of this tendency that the whole of Scripture is so critical for each of us. The Word of God is full of paradoxes: Love and wrath, violence and pacifism, free will and divine sovereignty, judgment and mercy, social justice and evangelism, proposition and poetry. Some of these elements seem difficult if not impossible to reconcile on earth, but they all attest to who God is. If we let go of one, then we fail to obey Scripture as faithfully, or reflect God as fully.
That is not to say that there is no Truth, or that we cannot know Truth with any certainty. There is, and we can. However we are also imperfect human beings struggling to digest the magnitude of who God is, and we will do so imperfectly.
A professor of mine, who is Reformed in his theology, recently put it this way. He summarized the story of God into 4 chapters: Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Restoration. He then explained that most Christians gravitate toward one or two parts of the story. As a member of the Reformed camp, he felt that Reformed thinkers gravitate toward the depravity and redemption parts of the story, sometimes neglecting Creation or Restoration. On the other hand, some Christians are preoccupied with caring for Creation, while others focus so much on Restoration that they embrace an over-realized eschatology.
Blessedly, Scripture, when read as a whole and taken seriously as a whole, protects us from straying too far in one direction. As a result, the nature of Scripture requires us to live in a place that, at times, might appear a bit “grey.” As soon as we feel certain about a conviction, we must return to God’s Word and make sure we are being true to the scope of it. We need to hold our beliefs in tension with Scriptural teachings that are less comfortable to us, or seem less important.
The reality of our sinful nature demands this checking and re-checking.
Again, I am not arguing that there is no black and white truth, or that we cannot know it. However, this principle is itself a great opportunity to demonstrate the tension I just described. Scripture teaches that we are sinful, broken creatures whose capacities to know are inhibited. AND YET, we are blessed with the light of the Holy Spirit, so we are not without the hope of understanding.
When it comes to knowing truth, we must hold both of these teachings in tension with one another. The balance between them is totally harmonious in God, but requires us to engage in a humble dance as we seek to embody it. The truth of God is not blurry or grey, but our attempts at accessing it may sometimes be perceived as such. For this reason, defaulting to a black and white way of seeing the world is not necessarily a sign of theological correctness, but of theological imbalance, or even blindness.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: sheworships
- Name: Sharon
- About Me: Sharon Hodde Miller is a North Carolina girl, born and raised! She is originally from Charlotte, NC, and she received her undergraduate degree and Masters of Divinity from Duke University. Sharon has worked for Proverbs 31 Ministries where she was a contributing writer to the ministry’s daily devotions and radio broadcasts. She has written for Relevant Magazine’s online articles, Lifeway’s Collegiate Magazine, Ungrind Webzine, and she continues to write and minister to women all over the world about being a Christian woman in an ever-changing culture. Sharon currently lives in Durham, North Carolina with her husband, who is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity at Duke Divinity School. If you would like to contact her regarding a speaking or writing opportunity, if you have any questions, or would like to submit a blog topic, please e-mail her at sharon(at)sheworships(dot)com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 1 320 Views: 273 245720 Comments: 3 2708 View all posts by sheworships
Comments (26)
Agreed. Extremism is never good. Romans 14 shows that not everything is black and white.
I disagree with the Pastor's stance. Many denominations translate the Bible to suit their own purposes, or, their own mean theologies, not once delving deeply into the Greek that was actually spoken when the texts were written. I'm not leaving out Hebrew here, but I've only delved personally into Greek the past couple of years, and it's shocked me how mean spirited some churches really are when beating people over the heads with their Bibles and claiming them to damnation.
"Post-modernism is deeply uncomfortable with any fact that would claim to be universal..." I don't know of any philosophers who are post-modernists. If post-modernism were true in nature, then our technology would never work. If bankers were postmodernists, they'd go broke. Accounts need to be reconciled absolutely. Relativism doesn't wash in banking.
Notice, that I have argued against post-modern thinking using philosophy. Maybe if more Christians weren't allergic to thinking, dumb ideas like post-modernism wouldn't be a problem in theology. It seems that people are using post-modernism as an excuse.
In philosophy, there was a movement about sixty years ago called positivism. You might think of it as modernism. The idea behind positivism is that only science says anything meaningful. Not only was this a problem for religion and theology, it was a problem for philosophy, history, literature, etc. So the philosophers pointed out to the positivists that their statement that "only science says anything meaningful" is philosophy. Being philosophy, it isn't science, ostensibly, Hence, the statement is necessarily meaningless. Also, Kuhn debunked the notion of absolute progressivism in science and Feyerabend debunked the notion of rationalism being superior to other ideas. This opened the door to relativism and post-modernism.
Well, there were some useful ideas in relativism, but some people tried to take it to an extreme, as an ideology. That didn't work in many areas, but theologians bought into it whole-heartedly. They tend to only look at the latest progressive idea and not realize when philosophy abandons that idea. So, theologians don't tend to correct their mistakes--especially the progressives. I can point at conservative theologians who don't keep up with things either.
Anyway, there was a movement in theology by a philosopher as a response to modernism. Cornelius van Til started a theology based on the notion that the way to defend against modernism was to avoid engaging it. His system is often called Presuppositionalism. Van Til wasn't totally consistent in his system, since he allowed for it to occasionally rely on evidence for apologetics. However, he was most concerned to prevent evidence from being used in attacks on Christian doctrine. Van Til's notion relies on constructing a framework of beliefs that is consistent with what Scripture says. However, it has problems with how scripture came to be accepted, since that always relied on evidence that a prophet's words didn't "fall to the ground."
So, van Til was a dead end and a lot of people are still committed to his ideas. The Bible relies heavily on evidence for all kinds of things--especially as regards historical facts. The Law of Moses demanded that judges look for corroboration of the empirical testimony of witnesses, which totally overthrows presuppositionalism. The evidence for the resurrection relies on the Jewish rules of evidence from the Law of Moses.
So, Christians need to learn how to argue against post-modernism, but that takes work. Unfortunately, many Christians are mentally lazy. So, it would help if preachers would admonish people about their need to be diligent to develop their minds for service. They used to do that in the 1800's, but preachers somehow got the idea in the 19800's that it was Ok for their congregations to be filled with mental slackers (sluggards).
This reminds me of my favorite show Supernatural. If you have never seen it, in the fourth season angels come into the mix. one expects the Angels to be nice but they are obedient, everything is black or white. You are either working with them and obeying God or you are not and are an object for God's holy wrath. The main characters, do not see things like the angels, and they, of course, have the luxury of free-will. ... Sure, there are some things that are black and white, but there are other things that are very complicated. Should we murder? No. Should we kill to protect? Most would say yes?
Should we worship Satan or new age cults? No. Should we worship materialism, patriotism, nationalism, consumerism, sexuality/desire? No, and yet many of us do. Should we feed the poor? Yes. Do you feed the poor personally? Many would have to say no. And there are a lot more possible questions.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - [For context, I'm an experimental atomic physicist.] I don't agree that scientists believe in "capital-T Truth." In science, the closest thing we have to "facts" are measurements. First, all measurements are accompanied by error bars representing the uncertainty of the measurement. Second, all measurements need to be interpreted in the context of a physical model.
How do you minimize uncertainty? Better technology helps, and the care with which any given experiment is performed also plays a big role. As we make more and more precise measurements, more and more physical phenomena become important and we rely more and more on our models in order to interpret our measurements. So the quality of the model we use to interpret the data also affects the uncertainty of our measurements.
This isn't moral relativism; it's a statement of ignorance--our experimental apparatus, procedure, and model all introduce uncertainty into the interpretation of our results. We need to take this uncertainty into account when comparing our results with theoretical predictions.
Neither is this process "black and white"; scientists know that quantifying uncertainty is difficult, and we often overlook phenomena or technical details in the process. Recent measurements of faster-than-light neutrinos are an example. We are all aware of the uncertainty of our uncertainty, and are constantly skeptical of results--whether our own or someone else's.
As for the pastor's statement, the flaw here is that there is no accounting for uncertainty. Translations, cultural context, interpretation of stories, authenticity... all these things carry with them some degree of uncertainty, and that uncertainty deserves recognition.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "scientists." Mathematicians are considered to be scientists by the NAS and proofs are part of mathematics. Certainly, a lot of mathematicians hold to a platonic view of mathematics, which implies that mathematics deals with truth.
My work in physics was in classical optics, btw. I may have been the first to show that reflectance spectra could be helpful in identifying organic compounds (1983). So, I understand very well about the limits of measurements and error bars. However, physics experiments have nothing to do with the ongoing application of technology. Either your car starts or it doesn't. Either your incandescent light bulb glows sufficiently by passing a current or it doesn't. Either a capacitor works or it doesn't. Either your operating system boots or it doesn't. We use technology because it works when the necessary components are unbroken. If technology fails to work, it isn't because the laws of nature don't work on Tuesday, but they work on Monday.
We may be mistaken in our theories about why technology works, but we know that it works. Engineers created the steam engine before Carnot explained its principles. Technology is sometimes dependent upon uncertain knowledge and guesses as to why it might work. Certainly, it can be helpful to hold a theory tentatively. Otoh, sometimes it helps to be fiercely committed to a theory.
As to uncertainty in biblical things--lower criticism is called a science. It has certain rules for determining the position of a particular text in the transmission flow.
Have you read any of Boyle's work on experimental philosophy? He wanted confirmation of results before publicizing them. Of course, confirmation sometimes assumes that the researchers are competent to set the error bars.
Boyle thought that having people witness his experiments was helpful in persuading others that he was able to obtain results. He performed experiments with members of the Royal Society in attendance and they signed his book of witnesses.
Qualitative chemistry is easy to check when you see the rapid formation of hydrogen bubbles or see an explosion; maybe you see a color change. We may be tentative about our theories, but not so much as regards the raw data for qual chem. (I have a degree in chem, too.) No question that Hanson was right that under some circumstances, data may be theory-laden. I lean towards Hacking in my view of the reality of entitities and theories, btw. I'm not a complete instrumentalist.
Ok, back to biblical stuff. It's critical to understand the cultural context of the Bible, which is a society oriented around the Law of Moses. Being a Jew meant that when you bore witness in a murder trial, you were performing a religious duty. Jews had strict rules about witnesses. Only empirical testimony was allowed ("we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard"). Corroboration was required to establish a fact ("out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be confirmed"). Witnesses were to be sequestered ("they brought forth witnesses"). Testimony was to be carefully scrutinized by the judges in their questioning (Deut. 19:19). In the development of the Old Testament canon, the words or book of a prophet had to undergo scrutiny and the truth of his words had to be supported by scrutinized, corroborated, empirical testimony. (This sort of rigor is what Boyle was aiming at.) There is still a great deal of scrutiny of biblical texts and biblical interpretation. Of course, one has to admit some uncertainty in a few passages, but generally the textual evidence is overwhelming regarding most biblical passages. The same goes for interpretations, but here we have a different problem. We have a tendency to predetermine a result when we read a passage so we end up inserting meaning not found in the text or we mangle the text to make it fit our result. Here, scrutiny by others not committed to the same result is helpful.
Translations can be helpful in terms of helping to fix a meaning at the time that the translation was done. Humans perceive things in a relative manner (i.e., from a particular perspective), but due to communication, if a source is omniscient, that source can communicate truth which is not limited by a human perspective.
I think that some biblical things may be uncertain, but by no means all and by no means any major doctrine.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - The technology argument doesn't resonate with me; how is it different from saying, "Rivers run downhill, therefore science deals with truth?" Technology is just an arrangement of objects behaving according to physical processes. A river is the same, but the arrangement is not intentionally built by people. That technology works according to plan--or that rivers run downhill--is only evidence that our current best approximation of the universe is good enough at these length/energy scales to accurately describe and predict phenomena.
The Math argument is more interesting, but I still disagree that Math deals with capital-T Truth. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that there exist mathematical statements that are neither true nor false. I would also challenge the claim that Math is a science. Math deals with logical relationships and implications, unconstrained by the details of the physical world around us (though I think Bertrand Russel argued that the Axiom of Infinity is philosophically equivalent to a requirement that there are infinitely many objects in the universe, but this is related to his particular definition of "number" in the framework of Type Theory, and I don't have an expert understanding to make meaningful criticisms of these ideas! I'm only providing links in case you are interested).
In any case, Math is different from Science because it doesn't share the burden of making predictions and/or being reconciled with observation.
Ok, back to Biblical stuff: I don't have trouble believing that God is unerring--as a scientist, I'm always operating under the belief that natural processes are governed by "natural laws." I do have trouble believing that humans have access to a flawless, unerring document describing those laws.
Let's assume that God leaned over and whispered Truth into the left ear of John Doe. It is now John Doe's duty to use an imperfect, human, worldly vehicle for communicating *his understanding* of that truth to other people. Whether he speaks, writes, acts, paints, sculpts, dances... we are interpreting the work of of a human. Whether or not that work is divinely inspired, it is being created by a human for other humans, and sources of uncertainty abound.
To me, any framework for Truth that doesn't allow for the existence of uncertainty is hogwash. This is my greatest obstacle in believing in any religion--blind faith is seen as a virtuous requirement. I need to be able to question and to test the claims of John Doe before I reach my own conclusions.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - you seem to believe you've a clear and unquestionable understanding of post-modernism (perhaps in similar ways to how you hold understanding of Biblical truth...just wondering aloud...as its sitting so obviously right there in your comments).
It seems to me that the concept of post-modernism is being explored as we go...meaning as philosophers and others explore their own understanding of the world (in relationship with others interested in the field and based upon earlier exploration) they enter conversation through positing theories for others consideration. It all seems similar to how scientists explore scientific fields of study (as I imagine you know better than I)...theories, experimentation, re-testing, peer review, revision, and so on...ad infinitum (or at least so far).
I like James KA Smith's, Professor of Philosophy, exploration of post modernism (45 min speech and 30 min Q&A) inspired by his own spirituality (seemingly Christian). If you'd care to take a listen does this change your perspective on post-modernism?
@jim_the_american@xanga - Have you read Nancy Cartwright's How the Laws of Physics Lie? It affected my view of the relationship between technology and physics. I see technology as affirming the notion that there are Laws of Nature that we can use, so this affirms the notion that Laws of Nature exist and that order therefore exists. It seems to me that when research
Regarding whether studying Math discovers Truth: Some think that Math proofs are discovered (implying that Math proofs exist independently) and others think that Math proofs are constructed (implying that the proofs don't exist independently of mathematicians.
Regarding Math as Science: How could you do physics without Math? If it's a necessary part of physics and physics is a science and the property "scientific" applies to the mathematical part of physics, then how can Math not be a science in some degree? This is fun, you've gotten onto an area I dearly love--demarcation.
Goedel is interesting, but I'm not sure that you understand him. I think that he was mostly saying that there were statements for any given system which couldn't be proven true or false within that system. They may even be meaningless within that system. I viewed that as a perspective thing.
"[Math is] unconstrained by the details of the physical world around us" It sounds like you are making a claim that science deals with the physical world. Economists might have a problem with that. There exist certain theories that claim to deal with the physical world which might prove controversial as to their actuality. They might be purely instrumental, yet they are called "science." And certain obsolete theories, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, are still called "science." And what of political science, engineering, psychology, and sociology, which NAS calls sciences? Do they study the natural world?
Astrology can make predictions which can be tested. Is it a science?
Art studies perspective and color, which touches on optics and perception. Does art have some properties of science to some degree?
It seems to me that the word "science" has such broad meanings that it is useless to try to use it for demarcation purposes. It seems that it mostly has popular rhetorical (though logically fallacious) usage rather than philosophical usage or meaning.
As regards inspiration: How about if God whispered a message in John Doe's ear because He knew how to do it in such a way as to get Truth as the output from John Doe. Of course, there's always the possibility of the reader screwing up the interpretation or the translator messing up or the copyist or printer messing up. I think that most screwups are at the level of interpretation because we have a prior commitment that forces a particular interpretation.
So, while I agree that there is uncertainty, I think that that uncertainty can be minimized if we practice caution and humility in our reading. We need to be aware of our prior commitments and be careful to allow uncertainty where they might force an outcome.
Where does the Bible ever speak of faith without evidence? Evidence might not be empirical to us directly, but testimony-based evidence is still evidence. If we're speaking about the testimony of the apostles, they spoke about what they had "seen and heard." That's the language of empirical experience. Furthermore, testimony for Jews always required scrutiny and corroboration. It was hardly a naive view of testimony. I think that this approach goes far to minimize uncertainty about historical facts.
@god_stories@xanga - I don't think that the formally philosophical thing called Post Modernism is really at issue here. Rather, it's more of a populist form of relativism, isn't it? Isn't it more that the individual is the author of moral truth and that libertinism is celebrated rather than virtue? The good of the individual is the chief good, no matter the harm to society or other individuals?
What do I think about biblical truth and why do I think that I have encountered it? That seems to be your question. There seems to be an undertone of questioning of my humility. I dunno. I'm still studying and learning things, tho it seems that God is directing me somehow. I discuss my ideas with others a lot and test the strength of my ideas. Sometimes it seems that God somehow says "keep going" or "not so much" to my ideas.
I'll plan to listen to Smith later. Thanks.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - There's so much going on in this discussion; I'll try to respond to what I see as your major points:
The existence of Natural Laws. I don't disagree that physical phenomena (from galaxies to atoms) obey physical laws; all the evidence I have seen suggests that they do. The point I'm making is that we only know approximations to the "true" laws of physics. How do I know that our human description is only an approximation? Well, dark matter is a great example. We know that it exists and that isn't made out of electrons or quarks (quarks are the building blocks for protons and neutrons). But we don't know very much else; for example, how does dark matter interact with ordinary matter? I don't want to start a discussion about dark matter; I only want to use it as an example that shows that our current best description of the universe (called the Standard Model) is incomplete, and its incompleteness is no secret.
The fact that technology works indicates that the Standard Model is pretty reliable at "large" length scales (say, larger than an nanometer), and any modifications to it--for instance, to account for dark matter--must not significantly alter the predictions at this length scale. In this sense, the Standard Model is a good approximation to "truth" as long as we agree to only describe a subset of all of nature. As we tweak the Standard Model to become more accurate, we can start to describe/understand a large subset of nature.
In this sense, we will always only be able to describe a subset of "truth." This is a fact that most scientists agree about (at least, in my experience). And it is also a fact that fuels a search for new physics which is not yet described by the Standard Model because these phenomena are novel, interesting, and pose a real challenge to our current worldview.
Math and Truth. I don't think I'm misunderstanding Goedel; I've read the original text and a few supporting texts. The Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates conclusively that there exist statements which are neither true nor false in frameworks as simple as arithmetic. Let's suppose that such a statement is called G (an example of such a statement is the continuum hypothesis). Since G is neither true nor false within arithmetic, we are free to expand arithmetic by including G (or its negation, not G) as an additional assumption. This new framework turns out to be incredibly rich, and gives rise to a new mathematical framework that might one day be useful for quantum mechanics!
However, even in the new systems (arithmetic +G or arithmetic + not G), there will still exist other statements that are neither true nor false. The incompleteness of any framework can never be fixed; there are always unknowables which we are free to assume are either true or false, giving rise to new, interesting frameworks.
Math as Science. I suppose there's some official definition of "science" floating around out there, and I'll take your word for it that the National Academy of Sciences considers math as a science. Even so, science doesn't purport to know "absolute, black & white, capital-T Truth." Everyone--whether a mathematician, physicist, or (especially!) economist--accepts that their systems are incomplete.
As for Astrology, sure, it's a science; it's a science that makes piss-poor predictions that contradict our observations. I wouldn't try to build a car or invest in stocks based on the results of an Astrological Model, and neither should you!
As for Art, it's clearly not a science--it doesn't make testable predictions (this is why I hesitate to call Math a science, but I'm 100% okay with calling Astrology a science). In some sense, Art does attempt to describe the world and the human condition, but not in a methodical, logical, consistent, quantitative way. You could probably make the argument that science is a subset of Art.
Divine inspiration and the role of doubt in the Church. My understanding is that being Chrisitan has little to do with my moral/ethical beliefs/actions--I think there are lots of compelling, secular reasons to avoid stealing, lying, and killing, and so I avoid doing them!--and more with faith.
In order to be a "true" Christian, I'd need to believe in the immaculate conception and the resurrection. To be a Greek Orthodox Christian (how I was raised), I'd need to believe in transubstantiation. In my mom's copy of the Orthodox Observer--her church's newsletter--the church agues that because Communion is Christ's blood and not wine, alcoholics don't need to worry about relapsing by taking Communion. In our church, we're supposed to close our lips around the a spoon which the priest uses to feed us communion. The idea is that not a single drop of Christ's blood can fall to the ground. Germs? No worries! It's Christ's blood, sin- AND germ- free!
Walking on water? Yes.
Water into wine? Yes.
Miracle of loaves and fishes? Yes.
Leviticus 18:22 is God's unerring word, but Leviticus 19:20-22 is to be interpreted in the context of its time. (Oh, and Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. At least, the parts we don't like. The parts we want to keep still apply.) Also, there are a bunch of scriptures that the Papacy determined are not of divine origin, so you can never see those. Also, they won't tell you how they reached their decisions; transparency is not a virtue. Opaqueness is. Have faith.
Where is there room in the church for the scientist? A person who asks questions and draws conclusions from evidence? A person who demands consistency and expects incompleteness? A person who recognizes the fallibility of even the most cutting-edge experiments (*cough* CERN *cough*) performed by tried-and-true experts? Can I doubt the Pope? Can I doubt Paul? Or Moses?
Is there *really* room for diligent, scientific skepticism in the church?
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - yeah, I guess I was questioning your humbleness about your beliefs, but your honest reflection of my comment gives me space to realize it's not only my 'objective' assessment of your comments, but my own wounding in relationship with others in the church that didn't offer me space to explore my own faith. So I'm hypersensitive to that. To your point about a pop definition of post-modernism, not sure it's helpful to promulgate a surface understanding (or perhaps false) of a popular phrase or concept...for reasons I'll explain below. And I think you'll really be fascinated by Smith's take on po-mo...be interested to hear your thoughts if you get a chance to check it out!
@jim_the_american@xanga - I really like your final point in your comment above...and honestly aligns with how I understand post-modernism. As I understand post-modernism (as described in the Smith video) it is a description of a culture that engages in pluralistic dialogue, where we each bring out own biases and understanding to a common discussion...each honored and part of a final understanding or decision. That versus modernism with its belief in a rational objective Truth (capital T), in which if we could just set aside our individual biases, beliefs, cultural...we'd certainly see a commonly agreed upon 'objective' truth.
So it seems to me that the church fully embraced modernism (all the good of that...and the evil of that) in the 1800's. That's when the Catholic church formalized the magisterium and catechism and protestants prior and in that timeframe honed their own doctrines. Seems to me there's become little space for a mysterious God. I'm hopeful that post-modernism will offer us the space to explore the mystical nature of God through pluralistic dialogue while in community...which as you describe perhaps aligns with the best of the scientific model of peer review. And with that perhaps the church (and all of us) will realize that the church can only offer a model of reality and not concrete reality itself...and when it does than there is space for new ideas, scientific, theological or otherwise. That requires a soft heart and THAT seems to me is what will lead each of us (and communally) to holiness and a perfecting of the bride of Christ (His universal church...and I don't mean one single denomination).
@jim_the_american@xanga - As regards Godel, consider the set of positive integers and the square root operation. Taking the square root of any square produces a result within the set. Taking a square root of any other number produces a result not in the set. The set is incomplete wrt the square root operation. You could do the same with subtraction and division. That was all I meant. I don't see how truth fits here.
As regards Art, artists do tests on perception all the time when they are trying to cause people to see things a certain way.
As regards true Christians--I'd say that belief in the resurrection is non-negotiable, but one might be in flux about some other doctrines not relating to the gospel. I'd say that Mary's inheritance of mortal sin is a matter of some controversy.
As regards doubt about some stuff, you might want to go read what I wrote about witnesses very carefully. I packed a lot of meaning there and it's easy to miss stuff. I think that discovering the facts of history might be a lot easier than choosing between competing theories. I don't think that the historical certainty of experimental data is often at issue in science when you have corroboration of the results by another research team.
That said, I think that there's plenty of uncertainty in many doctrinal issues and examination of the evidence and using reason is commended in the New Testament. Of course, not all Christians and not all churches may be on board with that. Scrutiny and humility are good things according to scripture. We are encouraged to discuss things. Of course, if someone who should know better starts spreading a novel heresy, that can't be ignored as "uncertainty," though a new inquirer should be given a lot more latitude.
If there's justification for uncertainty, I see no reason not to tolerate it and I never see a reason to discourage questions by an inquirer.
@god_stories@xanga - Ok, I researched Smith and watched the video. I also researched Derrida. It looks like Derrida is chastising modernists for smuggling their assumptions in while pretending to "pure reason," but it seems that Derrida is disallowing particulars, which is stacking the deck. His object seems to be to prevent exclusive claims as he sees that as causing friction and animosity. I question his historical analysis.
While politicians who happened to be Christians may have whipped up war fever by misusing Christian allegiances and doctrine, traditional Muslims have gone to war because their religion encourages subjugation of people of other religions. There is no parallel between Christianity and Islam on this point and Derrida looks to be very careless. He ignores the fact that politics is the main culprit as far as Christianity is concerned.
In the end, Derrida is simply creating a new instance of the old generic, faux-inclusive religion like New Age religion and Hinduism. Since that religion excludes the exclusive particulars (e.g., Christianity or Islam), it is no less exclusive than any of the particular religions and is more deceptive.
Post Modern Christianity can have more opportunity for dialogue with other faiths since it can appreciate that everyone has their own unique perspective which must be respected.
Have I understood it so far?
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Okay, so it seems like we're identifying an area in Christianity that is black-and-white: the resurrection.
In science there are a lot of "articles of faith," if you will. Causality is one. Others include statements about symmetries of the universe--e.g., rotational symmetry of the universe is the belief that the laws of physics would be the same if everything in the universe were rotated around an arbitrary axis. The difference between scientific articles of faith and Christian ones is this: In science, we are not only allowed to question articles of faith, but we are enjoined to do so, whereas Christianity requires the opposite, e.g., blind faith in the resurrection.
My research focuses on performing high-precision tests of the Standard Model. In particular, I test claims about "parity," or the "mirror reflection" symmetry of our universe. (Until the 1950s, scientists believed that the mirror image of our universe would be indistinguishable from our own, but surprisingly that's not the case!) My colleagues are testing various other "articles of faith"--one is testing whether photons are actually bosons, another is testing whether the fine structure constant is actually a constant by searching for changes in its value over space and time, and yet another colleague is testing Einstein's equivalence principle (the claim that inertial mass = gravitational mass).
The point is this: Literally every claim--not just most, but every single one--is testable. Every claim is expected to be scrutinized. "Fundamental" beliefs are not safe; quite the opposite, actually--fundamental beliefs are precisely the ones we are most interested in testing (and the ones being tested with the highest precision).
Christianity does not have room for this kind of scrutiny, and I don't know how you can ignore the cognitive dissonance needed to simultaneously claim that "scrutiny is a good thing according to scripture" but that belief in the resurrection is "non-negotiable." If there were room for the scientific mind in the church, then Christians would welcome and expect scrutiny of their most deeply held beliefs, including resurrection, immaculate conception, virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc.
But, sadly, this isn't the case. Hence the very concept of heresy. (Imagine if scientists called each other heretics for doubting each other's claims!)
[Sidenote: The square root operation is not "onto" the integers, that is, the set of integers is not "closed" under square-root operation. This is different from incompleteness. But this is part of a conversation about concept of "truth" in mathematics, and I'm more interested in talking about the role of scrutiny of beliefs in the Christian faith.]
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - ok, nice...look forward to exploring this with you, but think I need to go back and re-watch the vid first. One thought that comes to mind as I read your comment is that fundamentalism (a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles) is worth differentiating as a unique concept when talking about religions. So my experience is that any fundamentalist belief (as defined by MW...not the denomination fundamentalist christian denomination) can lead to unhelpful group behavior. And there's lots of examplesin maybe any religion, eg christian crusades, muslim jihad, hindu persecution of muslims, etc.
And I'll also say that any authentic spirituality can lead to holiness (personal authenticity). Foundational to that is my belief (based on Christian Bible study and prayer) that its God who loves us first and is the one who is calling us (mat 16:13-17)...so we can trust Him to reveal the truth of who He is and who we each are. Its interesting to look at Thomas Merton's life and his love first for Christian monasticism and then later in life his appreciation for other religious monastic movements. I only bring this up as a foundational response to some of what struck you in your research and hope it doesn't sideline us into a discussion of 'true religion.'
Thanks...and I'll get back to you after I re-watch the vid.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Nice, love where you're going here. I also honor your perspective that that is true for all Christianity, but wonder if its actually only the case since the mid-1800 (start of modern age). And I wonder if the dawning post-modern age won't offer space for a mysterious God, who is totally not black and white...and yet not grey either...maybe a rainbow of both visible and invisible light
@jim_the_american@xanga - "In science there are a lot of "articles of faith," if you will. Causality is one." Actually, induction is more basic than causality, but that's really not at issue. The idea that theory ought to adhere to reality is a guideline that aims at a goal but may be violated temporarily. As a theory matures, it is expected to adhere more and more to the data and to other theories (entailment). There seems to be some evidence that causality may be violated. Philosophy of science is one of my current interests (about five years).
"Christianity requires the opposite, e.g., blind faith in the resurrection." You're continuing to make this seminar-caller-level claim. I've asked you for evidence for your claim and you continue to ignore my request. It's pissing me off. Show me where in the Bible that your claim is supported wrt the case for the resurrection. Belief in the resurrection is a requirement for entry to the club, but it's not the case that one is allowed entry without scrutinizing the evidence. The deck isn't stacked either--one may end up not believing, in which case it wouldn't be appropriate to join the club. Even after believing, someone can still reexamine the evidence and may come to the opposite conclusion from what was originally determined. (The initial scrutiny might have been inadequate for some reason.) In that case, the appropriate action would be to leave. Or someone might have scrutinized the evidence inadequately initially, then reexamine it more carefully and end up with a more robust faith. The New Testament is simply filled with examples of scrutiny and reasoning which are prescriptive and encouragement to reason and scrutinize.
I was offended by your accusation of cognitive dissonance. I believe that I have answered you adequately.
The Bible encourages scrutiny--there is no way for Christians to enjoin scrutiny for everybody. Scrutiny is an expected practice in the Bible, but Christians might fail to practice it anyway. Of course, if you were to read theological journals, or even some popular Christian books, you might find that there is a lot of self-scrutiny by Christians of Christian teaching as well as scrutiny of theology. Source texts used by translators are scrutinized (called lower criticism); biblical archaeology scrutinizes the biblical claims. Egyptology also participates in the scrutiny. Ancient translations of the Bible into other languages are used in scrutiny. Language development is used for scrutiny--say, the historical development of written characters. Non-Christian sources are used for scrutiny.
The standard of evidence that is assumed for the resurrection is the same as that for a Hebrew capital case--corroborating empirical testimony obtained under thorough scrutiny.
Thanks for the info about current research--very interesting.
@god_stories@xanga - I think that MS thought that fundamentalist behavior (refusing to engage) was the problem, not the particular fundamentalist beliefs.
God may lead us, but, otoh, we may only think that God is leading us. If we ignore God's provision for salvation (the gospel) through Jesus Christ or fail to believe the gospel, then we will be self-deceived if we think that God is leading us. Of course, one may believe the gospel without understanding what it is or even that it is important. The content of the gospel is a long-term interest of mine spanning decades, in case you're interested in discussing it with me. Without understanding my views of it, you're likely to misunderstand my fundamental assumptions and view of things.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Any thoughts as to why some isotopes undergo spontaneous fission? Is the spontaneity only apparent and a relatively fragile nucleus is bombarded by a cosmic ray of a particular frequency that initiates the fission? Or is it maybe based on spontaneously changing quantum states of the nucleus where a certain state allows fission and only occurs rarely?
@god_stories@xanga - MS=Mark Smith; I meant "James Smith". Sorry for causing confusion.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Sorry for any offense; I didn't mean to ignore your questions, but I have trouble finding examples in scripture b/c I'm not familiar with the Bible.
I guess I have trouble believing that the resurrection is a conclusion that anybody could draw from data. Using testimony found in the Bible as evidence for this belief would constitute circular reasoning. Are there other accounts of the resurrection?
Another way to think about this is to entertain a hypothetical situation: Suppose humans colonize a distant planet, bringing with them no record of the Christian faith. I'm 100% confident that these people could--given enough time--come to the same scientific conclusions about the universe that we have arrived at here on Earth. Probably they would use different symbols, but the ideas would be the same: massive bodies attract each other with a force whose strength increases when they are brought closer together, and so on. The universe is everywhere; we can't help but observe it, and when we describe it, we are all describing the same universe.
But, barring divine intervention, how would these colonists ever conclude that the resurrection happened? They wouldn't need a physics textbook in order to (eventually) build transistors or steam engines or microwave ovens. But they would definitely need a Bible if they were ever to build a crucifix.
It is in this sense that I claim one must abandon skepticism, the need for evidence, and an appreciation of uncertainty in order to join the Christian faith. Belief in the resurrection isn't a dead horse that I'm beating, it is a paradigm of the type of thinking required to be a Christian.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - This is actually a pretty interesting question.
A radioactive nucleus is characterized by a half-life. One way to interpret the half-life is through a statistical lens: Given a large number of radioactive nuclei, the half-life is the amount of time needed for half of those nuclei to decay (whether by fission or some other mechanism, like beta decay).
But what happens when you only have one nucleus? Half of one nucleus can't decay; that doesn't make sense!
Instead, we must interpret half-life through a probabilistic lens: There is a 50% chance that the nucleus will decay within an amount of time equal to one half-life. So... flip a coin: heads, decay; tails, no decay, flip again. In this case, whether or not a single nucleus decays is totally probabilistic. Just like it's possible to flip a coin and get lots of tails in a row before "spontaneously" getting heads, it's possible for an individual nucleus to exist for a long time before "spontaneously" decaying.
(The case of lots of nuclei is equivalent to flipping a lot of coins all at once; about half of the coins will be tails.)
There's a cool technique called the Quantum Zeno Effect by which the lifetime of an individual radioactive nucleus could be extended for an arbitrarily long amount of time. The wiki description is pretty good, though a bit jargony.
Hello
my name is Heline, it's my pleasure to drop you some words just to say Hello and how was your day? well i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self,(helinejustin@hotmail.com)please i will be very happy if you will reply me via my email address so that we can move further for knowing each other (helinejustin@hotmail.com) Thanks I'm waiting for your reply,Yours Heline
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
¡Hola
mi nombre es Heline, es un placer que te deje unas palabras sólo para decir hola y cómo fue tu día? así me gustaría conocer algo más acerca de usted, y también quiero decirle más sobre mi mismo, (helinejustin@hotmail.com)por favor, seré muy feliz si usted me responda a través de mi dirección de correo electrónico para que podamos seguir avanzando para saber uno del otro (helinejustin@hotmail.com) Gracias estoy esperando su respuesta,Yours Heline
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - "Notice, that I have argued against post-modern thinking using philosophy. Maybe if more Christians weren't allergic to thinking, dumb ideas like post-modernism wouldn't be a problem in theology. It seems that people are using post-modernism as an excuse" -
I have recently been studying postmodernism... and i far from allergic to thinking and beyond irriated with lazy christians who don't even know a lick about the faith they 'belong' to.
I find a lot of good things in post-modernism, actually. But with anything, nothing is perfectly sound through and through, lol - a postmodernist view righ there. There is absolute truth, but our perceptions can really mess things up.
I love this post. =] very though-provoking and right along the lines of my recent studies =]
@xXrEMmUsXx@xanga - Postmodernism is most effective in its attacks on Modernism (e.g. against Positivism), but lacks effective alternatives.
@jim_the_american@xanga - "Using testimony found in the Bible as evidence for this belief would constitute circular reasoning."
Why is that circular reasoning? And why do you think that testimony about the resurrection is found in the Bible? I haven't found anything in the Bible that constitutes testimony as regards the resurrection. I've seen some defenses against charges by Paul and Peter, but that's not testimony about the resurrection. I'm not sure that you're very clear on the Jewish definition of "testimony," which is a critical issue.
"Instead, we must interpret half-life through a probabilistic lens"
That's still not a mechanism, which is what I'm interested in. It sounds like there's no real mechanism.