31 July 2010
27 July 2010
God in Creation
I'm reading Moltmann's God in Creation and despite JM's theistic-evolution type stance (I don't think that he's a typical TE person in the normal neo-evangelical usage), and his reference to the concerns of the 1980s (concerns which now seem dated and a little politically naive), he makes remarks which I think worth posting.
Of course, I don't accept that there is more than one creation account. He refers above, of course to Genesis 1, and implies that G2 is a second account, which, of course, it is not.
One think that I've noticed is that Multmann flicks between quite a biblical world-concept and the opposite, that is, a materialist or pagan world-concept. His use of the word 'nature' above could betray this. Most usages of 'nature' imply disconnection from God, and self-existance at some level; I prefer the usage 'the creation' when considering the world around us as this identifies dependence upon and authorship by God, underlining the basic-ness of personality, or love in thinking about things.
If we think in terms of environment and biotypes, the construction of the first creation account is astonishingly clear and logical. Modern reproaches that it is the mere outcome of mythical speculation, or that it displays a naive knowledge of nature, are quite wide of the mark.
Of course, I don't accept that there is more than one creation account. He refers above, of course to Genesis 1, and implies that G2 is a second account, which, of course, it is not.
One think that I've noticed is that Multmann flicks between quite a biblical world-concept and the opposite, that is, a materialist or pagan world-concept. His use of the word 'nature' above could betray this. Most usages of 'nature' imply disconnection from God, and self-existance at some level; I prefer the usage 'the creation' when considering the world around us as this identifies dependence upon and authorship by God, underlining the basic-ness of personality, or love in thinking about things.
25 July 2010
Eternity: sycophancy rules?
Because Eternity published Greg Clarke's article, that I wrote directly to Greg about, I thought I'd write to the editor as well; almost needless to say, the letter was not published (does this mean Eternity's editorial policy is "agree or be silent?")
Greg Clarke’s comments about those who accept the direct reading of the Bible’s account of creation, in his article in Eternity, seems to stand at odds, not only with long Christian tradition (and theological consideration), but with the Bible itself!
The Genesis account, is endorsed, without qualification, throughout the Old and New Testaments, it is the spring point for the setting of covenant between God and humanity, and beds the relationship in the real world, not in an airy world of allusion or literary suggestion. Indeed, we are told in the OT that God spoke to Moses plainly (Ex 33:11), so presumably, Moses passed this plain talk on to us in the Bible!
The critical text in this connection, however, is Hebrews 11:1-3 which shows that God’s creating is the starting point of faith, faith hung on his action in history, and a creation that came from his word, not made of things seen: the very opposite of what materialism (evolution) contends!
So, Greg, do I take your word, or the word of the Holy Spirit?
Greg Clarke’s comments about those who accept the direct reading of the Bible’s account of creation, in his article in Eternity, seems to stand at odds, not only with long Christian tradition (and theological consideration), but with the Bible itself!
The Genesis account, is endorsed, without qualification, throughout the Old and New Testaments, it is the spring point for the setting of covenant between God and humanity, and beds the relationship in the real world, not in an airy world of allusion or literary suggestion. Indeed, we are told in the OT that God spoke to Moses plainly (Ex 33:11), so presumably, Moses passed this plain talk on to us in the Bible!
The critical text in this connection, however, is Hebrews 11:1-3 which shows that God’s creating is the starting point of faith, faith hung on his action in history, and a creation that came from his word, not made of things seen: the very opposite of what materialism (evolution) contends!
So, Greg, do I take your word, or the word of the Holy Spirit?
19 July 2010
Creation by Crowe
I've just read "Creation without Compromise" by Donald Crowe. Not a bad read, IMO. The book is fairly wide ranging, but has the central theme of one's view of origins being about, at root, the 'world-view' one adopts.
The book argues this well, without referring to what I think is a landmark book in this area, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, by Clouser. (Clouser is an evolutionist, as it happens). This results in one being able to say, I think, cogently, that the debate about origins (creation vs. evolution) is not a debate about 'science' vs. 'religion', where the science side thinks it gets the upper hand (but which just goes to prove what a philosopher I heard once say, only proves that scientists make poor philosophers), but is purely a religious debate.
Thus, putting paid to the tivial comment one often hears that 'the Bible is not a science textbook'. As though this was ever a question!
The author makes much of the importance of chronology as being the structure for history, and that the Bible gives us substantial chronological information, and does so quite self-consciously: that is, one doesn't have to go hunting for it.
Chronology does a couple of things in this connection, that rarely seems to be picked up in discussion.
1. It acts much the same way as the provenance of a document does for an historian. It gives us certitude about the connection of the document with that which it purports to report. Thus, in the Bible, the chronology gives us structuring information that goes to the historical credibility of its reports. If you can't give the chronological coordinates of your history, then the certitude of it being history reduces.
2. Similarly to (1) above, it shows us our connection to God. It is not some vague or mystical connection, conjoured out of hope or wishful thinking, but a connection that is tangible in terms of what makes things tangible in our life and times.
Adding 1 and 2, the creation, and indeed Biblical history, occured in this world, with the delimiters that position and relate every other event in this world: time and place (space). It is prosaically explicable, and not a mystery accessible only to those 'in the know'; but is, at least in principle, public knowledge.
If you can't give the coordinates of your story (of creation) then, it remains a story, and the real world must be explained in some other way.
The book argues this well, without referring to what I think is a landmark book in this area, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, by Clouser. (Clouser is an evolutionist, as it happens). This results in one being able to say, I think, cogently, that the debate about origins (creation vs. evolution) is not a debate about 'science' vs. 'religion', where the science side thinks it gets the upper hand (but which just goes to prove what a philosopher I heard once say, only proves that scientists make poor philosophers), but is purely a religious debate.
Thus, putting paid to the tivial comment one often hears that 'the Bible is not a science textbook'. As though this was ever a question!
The author makes much of the importance of chronology as being the structure for history, and that the Bible gives us substantial chronological information, and does so quite self-consciously: that is, one doesn't have to go hunting for it.
Chronology does a couple of things in this connection, that rarely seems to be picked up in discussion.
1. It acts much the same way as the provenance of a document does for an historian. It gives us certitude about the connection of the document with that which it purports to report. Thus, in the Bible, the chronology gives us structuring information that goes to the historical credibility of its reports. If you can't give the chronological coordinates of your history, then the certitude of it being history reduces.
2. Similarly to (1) above, it shows us our connection to God. It is not some vague or mystical connection, conjoured out of hope or wishful thinking, but a connection that is tangible in terms of what makes things tangible in our life and times.
Adding 1 and 2, the creation, and indeed Biblical history, occured in this world, with the delimiters that position and relate every other event in this world: time and place (space). It is prosaically explicable, and not a mystery accessible only to those 'in the know'; but is, at least in principle, public knowledge.
If you can't give the coordinates of your story (of creation) then, it remains a story, and the real world must be explained in some other way.
16 July 2010
PM 'outs' as atheist!
Following our Prime Minster, Julia Gillard's stating that she is no a believer in God, the series of letters below appeared in one of Sydney's suburban newspapers.
Interesting how the idea of God (or not-God, in this case) very quickly becomes a discussion about origins...its like the two ideas go together!
Interesting how the idea of God (or not-God, in this case) very quickly becomes a discussion about origins...its like the two ideas go together!
12 July 2010
Genesis days
Another quote from Young's article on the Genesian days.
The whole article is in two parts on Ted Hildebrandt's website: part 1 and part 2.
The whole article is in two parts on Ted Hildebrandt's website: part 1 and part 2.
10 July 2010
Genesis & its literary form
From Young, EJ, Studies in Genesis One "The Interpretation of Genesis
1:2" First published in the Westminster Theological Journal.
Much has been written, even in evangelical circles, about the alleged
parallel between the Enuma Elish myth and Genesis 1. Young deals with an
aspect of this here. It is also worth noting that Eliade (see previous
posts) shows that EE is a ceremonial text with more cult usage than
setting out an account of what happened. Genesis is couched in language,
and a theological logic that indicates that the author took the events
of Genesis 1 to have actually happened in our 'time-space'.
1:2" First published in the Westminster Theological Journal.
Much has been written, even in evangelical circles, about the alleged
parallel between the Enuma Elish myth and Genesis 1. Young deals with an
aspect of this here. It is also worth noting that Eliade (see previous
posts) shows that EE is a ceremonial text with more cult usage than
setting out an account of what happened. Genesis is couched in language,
and a theological logic that indicates that the author took the events
of Genesis 1 to have actually happened in our 'time-space'.
8 July 2010
65 million years
This quote from the ABC1 'Gruen Transfer' panel show:
The Gruen Transfer is a show about advertising, the quote is from one of the panelists Dan Gregory from SMART.
Interesting practical application of the idea of evolution: let's just use people for titilation, because all we are is reproducing units.
...at the end of the day I personally don't have a problem with objectification of guys by women in ads or women by men in ads because at the end of the day the only reason we're here after 65 million years is someone's been 'shagin.'
The Gruen Transfer is a show about advertising, the quote is from one of the panelists Dan Gregory from SMART.
Interesting practical application of the idea of evolution: let's just use people for titilation, because all we are is reproducing units.
6 July 2010
5 July 2010
Why does the universe look so old?
Well, does it, now?
Check this blog reporting on conference remarks by Al Mohler.
It is also on line. (It’s under the SAT (for Saturday) tab and over 60 mins long.)
Check this blog reporting on conference remarks by Al Mohler.
It is also on line. (It’s under the SAT (for Saturday) tab and over 60 mins long.)
2 July 2010
28 June 2010
24 June 2010
Eternity...idiots?
In a recent edition of a local Christian newspaper "Eternity" an article appeared authored by Greg Clarke, a worker at the Centre for Public Christianity. He made the somewhat undergraduate claim that Christians who take the opening chapter of the Bible at face value are, somehow 'idiots'.
I wrote to Clarke as follows:
I was in many ways pleased to see your recent article in Eternity. I was particularly encouraged having heard you speak at the Centre for Public Christianity supporters’ lunch a couple of months ago at the Wesley Centre in Sydney.
However, as I read the article, I became concerned at the pejorative language attached to an historic Christian position held with respect to our understanding of the opening chapters of the Bible.
I must say, I was surprised, no, disappointed, in the use of the term ‘idiot’ to apply to some of the greatest names in church history, many respected Christian people and, to an extent, to myself as well. It reminds me of a similar lapse many years ago when Archbishop Jensen, who was then principal of Moore College and had been a regular preacher at my church, lampooned the historic Christian doctrine of creation as being a ‘hill billy’ view!
It seemed that his, and perhaps your, preferred take on the scriptures was to set them aside in deference to the world view which starts with the axiom that there is no God, and if there might be, he certainly hasn’t spoken meaningfully to us in terms congruent with the world we are in (yet how contrary this is to the import of Genesis 1). This aligns with the deist roots of modern views of cosmogony and Earth history that makes of God a mere cipher with no real connection with either the material cosmos or ourselves.
The irony in your declaration that people who accept the Bible’s account of creation at face value are ‘head in the sand idiots’ is its similarity to the more vehement declarations Richard Dawkins makes about Christians in general! His point is that any insertion of the supernatural into the evolutionary scheme is a sign of insanity. It was amusing to hear him on ABC TV’s Q&A program stating his view that he doesn’t mind if church worthies accept evolution alongside the Bible, because he saw such acceptance as the death knell of religious views. Why should he worry, he’s won!
Irony aside, the repugnance of your claim is the implications it has for the believer’s humility before the revelation of God, the preconceptions that constrain your particular hermeneutic, and the general failure to engage with conservative scholarship, let alone scientific criticism of the very old pagan view that the world, the ‘real’ world, really made itself over vast amounts of time, and we merely ‘clip on’ God, as a fiction, as most materialists see it: not as the credible creator who started it all.
I know that your colleague John Dixon is of the view that Genesis 1 has a literary structure that precludes it being an account of actual events, yet his case is not made, in my view, and he appears to simply trot out ideas that E J Young, as an example, had discussed and rebutted in the early 1960s. So, nothing new under the sun! Dixon does venture further into some more complex literary considerations, with his reference to the chiastic structure of Genesis 1, but he fails to indicate how this necessarily precludes the text being an account of events, given the ubiquity of the structure in the Bible and in ancient literature.
But it is at the point of ‘realism’ that I think your claim hits a snag. The view you appear to extol seems to me to have more in common with the anti-realist views of broadly conceived paganism and its contemporary dress-up, philosophical idealism. This set of views is perfectly happy with the Bible being regarded as conveying information by not conveying information, in some incoherent twist of logic, while pretending to adopt the realist stance of the Bible: that things can be as stated, and the world came from God’s hand as a unitary creation. That is, we think, understand and live in the world as a consistent whole, including the illumination of that world from the word of God, when it in fact rejects any realist stance and makes the Bible discontinuous with the world that it claims God made for encounter between him and us!
At bottom, you seem to be more impressed by contemporary materialism, its acolytes and deep cultural assent, and align yourself with a non-believers’ critique of the Bible. This alignment has never produced a change in materialists, but paves the road to disbelief by saying that God has nothing to do with this world, it just is.
I wrote to Clarke as follows:
I was in many ways pleased to see your recent article in Eternity. I was particularly encouraged having heard you speak at the Centre for Public Christianity supporters’ lunch a couple of months ago at the Wesley Centre in Sydney.
However, as I read the article, I became concerned at the pejorative language attached to an historic Christian position held with respect to our understanding of the opening chapters of the Bible.
I must say, I was surprised, no, disappointed, in the use of the term ‘idiot’ to apply to some of the greatest names in church history, many respected Christian people and, to an extent, to myself as well. It reminds me of a similar lapse many years ago when Archbishop Jensen, who was then principal of Moore College and had been a regular preacher at my church, lampooned the historic Christian doctrine of creation as being a ‘hill billy’ view!
It seemed that his, and perhaps your, preferred take on the scriptures was to set them aside in deference to the world view which starts with the axiom that there is no God, and if there might be, he certainly hasn’t spoken meaningfully to us in terms congruent with the world we are in (yet how contrary this is to the import of Genesis 1). This aligns with the deist roots of modern views of cosmogony and Earth history that makes of God a mere cipher with no real connection with either the material cosmos or ourselves.
The irony in your declaration that people who accept the Bible’s account of creation at face value are ‘head in the sand idiots’ is its similarity to the more vehement declarations Richard Dawkins makes about Christians in general! His point is that any insertion of the supernatural into the evolutionary scheme is a sign of insanity. It was amusing to hear him on ABC TV’s Q&A program stating his view that he doesn’t mind if church worthies accept evolution alongside the Bible, because he saw such acceptance as the death knell of religious views. Why should he worry, he’s won!
Irony aside, the repugnance of your claim is the implications it has for the believer’s humility before the revelation of God, the preconceptions that constrain your particular hermeneutic, and the general failure to engage with conservative scholarship, let alone scientific criticism of the very old pagan view that the world, the ‘real’ world, really made itself over vast amounts of time, and we merely ‘clip on’ God, as a fiction, as most materialists see it: not as the credible creator who started it all.
I know that your colleague John Dixon is of the view that Genesis 1 has a literary structure that precludes it being an account of actual events, yet his case is not made, in my view, and he appears to simply trot out ideas that E J Young, as an example, had discussed and rebutted in the early 1960s. So, nothing new under the sun! Dixon does venture further into some more complex literary considerations, with his reference to the chiastic structure of Genesis 1, but he fails to indicate how this necessarily precludes the text being an account of events, given the ubiquity of the structure in the Bible and in ancient literature.
But it is at the point of ‘realism’ that I think your claim hits a snag. The view you appear to extol seems to me to have more in common with the anti-realist views of broadly conceived paganism and its contemporary dress-up, philosophical idealism. This set of views is perfectly happy with the Bible being regarded as conveying information by not conveying information, in some incoherent twist of logic, while pretending to adopt the realist stance of the Bible: that things can be as stated, and the world came from God’s hand as a unitary creation. That is, we think, understand and live in the world as a consistent whole, including the illumination of that world from the word of God, when it in fact rejects any realist stance and makes the Bible discontinuous with the world that it claims God made for encounter between him and us!
At bottom, you seem to be more impressed by contemporary materialism, its acolytes and deep cultural assent, and align yourself with a non-believers’ critique of the Bible. This alignment has never produced a change in materialists, but paves the road to disbelief by saying that God has nothing to do with this world, it just is.
20 June 2010
Eliade 3
Interesting thoughts about Abraham's obedience to God in preparing to sacrifice Isaac:
and over the page:
and from the introduction:
and over the page:
and from the introduction:
16 June 2010
13 June 2010
Eliade
I've just completed reading Mircea Eliade's Myth of Eternal Return, and while in parts somewhat testing (i.e. dull), in other parts very illuminating on the operation of the concept of time in religious and ontological contexts. I'll post pieces I've found particularly interesting from a Christian perspective.
The first is below.
Against what I realise is some contemporary scholarship, which attempts to reabsorb the creation account in Genesis 1 into an ANE mythic background, Eliade identifies is as going in the very opposite direction!
The first is below.
Against what I realise is some contemporary scholarship, which attempts to reabsorb the creation account in Genesis 1 into an ANE mythic background, Eliade identifies is as going in the very opposite direction!
6 June 2010
Shepherd
It is well known that David was, prior to his prominence in the Bible, was a shepherd: in 1 Chronicles 17:7, it says this of him:
Interesting to note that a shepherd...a pastor? doesn't lead, but follows the flock! Also that the passage distinguishes that role from that of 'leader'.
I wonder if this might throw light today on the prediliction we have in modern western churches to refer to a model of community life that is predicated upon the exclusivity and individualisating notion of leadership.
Leadership may work in authority or information relationships, such as the armed forces, or in the quasi legal relationships of business or government; but I don't think it is congenial with how the scriptures, particularly the NT describes the life of the church. Certainly we have apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. But essentially all relationships within the body of Christ are characterised as serving, ministry, relationships, not leading/boss/political relationships, essentially.
Yet we allow ourselves to be led down the path of the world, which loves specialness, celebrity, power and prestige, and have 'leaders' and CEOs (of christian organisations...why not coordinators, organisers, even just ministers or servants?).
This comes to me every so often in the context of 'leading' a service, or a small study group. But I've never 'led' them, I hope I've always served! So a small group servant/minister? Or at most convenor or moderator?
I've learnt of a recent World Vision leadership convention for young people. Surely we want young people, particularly young christians to learn to be humble servants, not court the prominence of 'leadership'. Christ had some hard words to say about 'leaders'. I would suspect that we should try not to be such, but seek opportunities to serve, and encourage, which I think the word and the contemporary context of 'leader' mitigates against.
Now, therefore, thus shall you say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be leader over My people Israel.
Interesting to note that a shepherd...a pastor? doesn't lead, but follows the flock! Also that the passage distinguishes that role from that of 'leader'.
I wonder if this might throw light today on the prediliction we have in modern western churches to refer to a model of community life that is predicated upon the exclusivity and individualisating notion of leadership.
Leadership may work in authority or information relationships, such as the armed forces, or in the quasi legal relationships of business or government; but I don't think it is congenial with how the scriptures, particularly the NT describes the life of the church. Certainly we have apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. But essentially all relationships within the body of Christ are characterised as serving, ministry, relationships, not leading/boss/political relationships, essentially.
Yet we allow ourselves to be led down the path of the world, which loves specialness, celebrity, power and prestige, and have 'leaders' and CEOs (of christian organisations...why not coordinators, organisers, even just ministers or servants?).
This comes to me every so often in the context of 'leading' a service, or a small study group. But I've never 'led' them, I hope I've always served! So a small group servant/minister? Or at most convenor or moderator?
I've learnt of a recent World Vision leadership convention for young people. Surely we want young people, particularly young christians to learn to be humble servants, not court the prominence of 'leadership'. Christ had some hard words to say about 'leaders'. I would suspect that we should try not to be such, but seek opportunities to serve, and encourage, which I think the word and the contemporary context of 'leader' mitigates against.
2 June 2010
On Ethics: the NSW Education Program
The recent debate about teaching ‘ethics’ instead of ‘special religious education’ in public schools has been an opportunity for public Christians to proclaim the gospel. Unfortunately, the opportunity has been neglected!
Much of the debate has let people think that Christian faith is about ethics, when it is very much not so. One looks to Christians to behave ethically, because they have a different take on life to those who think it all ends here (quoting a lyric by Bruce Cockburn), but Christian faith is not so. If anything, it is about the failure of ethics to produce ethical behaviour (think of Paul in Romans 7).
My line of criticism of the ethics courses would be in reference to ethical failure: how are people to make sense of their actions when they fail to live up to their own standards; and whence forgiveness, which is the very point of Christian faith?
The whole area of moral epistemology was also ripe for attack, but was not taken up, so the Anglican church in particular just looked like it was blustering about a ‘lost’ monopoly and probably failed to influence anyone, or attract interest with its sage and compassionate grasp of the underlying issues.
In connection with this matter, a few letters to the press from parents of children in scripture classes have been unhappy with the curriculum. One example was a young child who came home questioning if her parents would ‘go to hell’. If a curriculum or SRE teacher was so blunt with a young child, I’d want to avoid it too. When dealing with ‘heaven and hell’ with children, a better approach is along the lines of explaining that God’s friends will live with God forever, and anyone can be God’s friend by believing him.
A child then asks: “what about people who aren’t God’s friends?” The answer could be “if people aren’t God’s friends, why would they want to be with him? But, they might become God’s friends later.”
Much of the debate has let people think that Christian faith is about ethics, when it is very much not so. One looks to Christians to behave ethically, because they have a different take on life to those who think it all ends here (quoting a lyric by Bruce Cockburn), but Christian faith is not so. If anything, it is about the failure of ethics to produce ethical behaviour (think of Paul in Romans 7).
My line of criticism of the ethics courses would be in reference to ethical failure: how are people to make sense of their actions when they fail to live up to their own standards; and whence forgiveness, which is the very point of Christian faith?
The whole area of moral epistemology was also ripe for attack, but was not taken up, so the Anglican church in particular just looked like it was blustering about a ‘lost’ monopoly and probably failed to influence anyone, or attract interest with its sage and compassionate grasp of the underlying issues.
In connection with this matter, a few letters to the press from parents of children in scripture classes have been unhappy with the curriculum. One example was a young child who came home questioning if her parents would ‘go to hell’. If a curriculum or SRE teacher was so blunt with a young child, I’d want to avoid it too. When dealing with ‘heaven and hell’ with children, a better approach is along the lines of explaining that God’s friends will live with God forever, and anyone can be God’s friend by believing him.
A child then asks: “what about people who aren’t God’s friends?” The answer could be “if people aren’t God’s friends, why would they want to be with him? But, they might become God’s friends later.”
28 May 2010
Truth in a post-modern world
A recent talk at church was the second on faith contexts; this one was on faith in a post-modern age. The main thrust of the talk was about the ‘relativity’ of truth in a post-modern world, as opposed to the ‘absolute’ truth that Christians hold to.
I wonder what ‘absolute’ truth is? Is it objective truth, that is independent of the subject, or could it be stated as something being true in all relationships at all times? So, in a way, true, independently of relationships. This could get a bit tricky, because truth is only apprehended in a relation, for example between an observer and a phenomenon in the external world.
But more is said better by Moreland in his address to the ETS in 2004.
One of the lines of development that underpins the post-modern approach to truth is, I think Berger and Luckmann’s book “The Social Construction of Knowledge” (1966). Where the case is made, with some merit, I think, that we jointly construct ‘reality’ in social contexts. However, this construction is limited and falls below the line of ‘truth’ in typical cases, and remains an operational matter, being about how relations are conceived and operated in complex social settings where a large set of shared assumptions about interactions and their meaning(s) apply. But, no matter how a group ‘constructs’ its world, they will leave rooms by doors and not walls. What is ‘constructed’ is the psycho-social meaning attached to leaving a room in the immediate context, I would think.
Towards the end of the talk, people were invited to join a prayer in turning to God; ironically, the invitation was made using the phrase “if it’s right for you” or words to that effect; which agrees with the post-modern project and tended to undo the argument being put forward in the talk (so if a Buddhist heard the talk, would they feel it was not ‘right for them’ and so not consider the prayer?). The irony of it!
The Bible, on the other hand, calls for repentance absolutely; there is no ‘right for you’ option. I’m not wanting to be critical here, as I’ve used this phrase myself, and it is probably a kind way of inviting people to consider their relationship with Christ…but, it also shows how popular thinking intrudes on our language (the way we socially construct reality) almost unnoticed.
In this context its interesting to consider a quote from Plantinga from his essay Naturalism Defeated
Aside from the puzzle of Platinga's have-cake-and-eat-it belief (he seems to accept evolution, which is derived from naturalism, but criticises its naturalism in interesting contrast to Flew’s latter day rejection of naturalism), he throws up an interesting take on the concept, and indeed, the operation of truth in a naturalistic world, where minds only need to be sufficient for survival, and while Churchland’s view might not be held by all naturalists, it does suggest a weakness in naturalism’s conceptualisation of why things are as they are. If it’s not about survival, in some way (and that net may be quite large), then the connection with truth may be unsure.
Of course, at base, the post-modern explanation is self-defeating: if ‘truth’ is what you make it, then the truth of that view is itself subject to what one makes of it: here the post-modern project follows in the steps of its naturalist cousin and, in the great tradition of logical positivism, cannot provide the basis for its progam in terms of the program, and collapses on itself. On these grounds, the Christian is at liberty to reject it, while inviting post-moderns to leave by the wall, and not the door.
As an aside, during the talk I referred to above, a comment was made about moral positions that are held in all societies. Unfortunately, the examples given were not held in all societies. For instance, child abuse, asserted as being universally rejected, was in fact institutionalised in the ancient world over many centuries; in his book Sick Societies, Robert Edgerton documents many societies where practices that we would be appalled by are or were commonplace and applauded. Don Richardson in his book Peace Child takes us on a similar tour of depravity.
I wonder what ‘absolute’ truth is? Is it objective truth, that is independent of the subject, or could it be stated as something being true in all relationships at all times? So, in a way, true, independently of relationships. This could get a bit tricky, because truth is only apprehended in a relation, for example between an observer and a phenomenon in the external world.
But more is said better by Moreland in his address to the ETS in 2004.
One of the lines of development that underpins the post-modern approach to truth is, I think Berger and Luckmann’s book “The Social Construction of Knowledge” (1966). Where the case is made, with some merit, I think, that we jointly construct ‘reality’ in social contexts. However, this construction is limited and falls below the line of ‘truth’ in typical cases, and remains an operational matter, being about how relations are conceived and operated in complex social settings where a large set of shared assumptions about interactions and their meaning(s) apply. But, no matter how a group ‘constructs’ its world, they will leave rooms by doors and not walls. What is ‘constructed’ is the psycho-social meaning attached to leaving a room in the immediate context, I would think.
Towards the end of the talk, people were invited to join a prayer in turning to God; ironically, the invitation was made using the phrase “if it’s right for you” or words to that effect; which agrees with the post-modern project and tended to undo the argument being put forward in the talk (so if a Buddhist heard the talk, would they feel it was not ‘right for them’ and so not consider the prayer?). The irony of it!
The Bible, on the other hand, calls for repentance absolutely; there is no ‘right for you’ option. I’m not wanting to be critical here, as I’ve used this phrase myself, and it is probably a kind way of inviting people to consider their relationship with Christ…but, it also shows how popular thinking intrudes on our language (the way we socially construct reality) almost unnoticed.
In this context its interesting to consider a quote from Plantinga from his essay Naturalism Defeated
“But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself expressed this doubt: "With me," he said, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? The same thought is put more explicitly by Patricia Churchland. She insists that the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; this means, she says, that its principal function is to enable the organism to move appropriately: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”
Aside from the puzzle of Platinga's have-cake-and-eat-it belief (he seems to accept evolution, which is derived from naturalism, but criticises its naturalism in interesting contrast to Flew’s latter day rejection of naturalism), he throws up an interesting take on the concept, and indeed, the operation of truth in a naturalistic world, where minds only need to be sufficient for survival, and while Churchland’s view might not be held by all naturalists, it does suggest a weakness in naturalism’s conceptualisation of why things are as they are. If it’s not about survival, in some way (and that net may be quite large), then the connection with truth may be unsure.
Of course, at base, the post-modern explanation is self-defeating: if ‘truth’ is what you make it, then the truth of that view is itself subject to what one makes of it: here the post-modern project follows in the steps of its naturalist cousin and, in the great tradition of logical positivism, cannot provide the basis for its progam in terms of the program, and collapses on itself. On these grounds, the Christian is at liberty to reject it, while inviting post-moderns to leave by the wall, and not the door.
As an aside, during the talk I referred to above, a comment was made about moral positions that are held in all societies. Unfortunately, the examples given were not held in all societies. For instance, child abuse, asserted as being universally rejected, was in fact institutionalised in the ancient world over many centuries; in his book Sick Societies, Robert Edgerton documents many societies where practices that we would be appalled by are or were commonplace and applauded. Don Richardson in his book Peace Child takes us on a similar tour of depravity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)