The Forum > Article Comments > Anti-dogmatism > Comments
Anti-dogmatism : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 7/4/2008Anti-dogmatism is alive and well. There are many clergy in the Anglican and Uniting denominations who proudly turn their back on the formal study of theology.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
-
- All
Posted by Sells, Monday, 7 April 2008 10:28:27 AM
| |
I prefer to consider theology education as one group of people who helped make up what went before teaching the next generation to add to the litany by making up some more.
Or as Terry Lane once commented, "Theologists make it all up as they go along." Homo sapiens and their forebears created the ethical amd moral rules necessary for millions of years of successful existence before we had the ability to write them down. Many of the ones we first wrote down were often only essential in the eyes of those who wished to retain their domination. Not much has changed. Posted by Foyle, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:31:23 PM
| |
Peter,
A very interesting article, except for your apparent distrust of philosophical insights into dogmatic theology, though, of course, "sola philosophia" is as one-sided as "sola scriptura". Perhaps the relation of dogmatic theology, doctrines, to metaphysics is not unlike that of pure mathematics to natural science, notably physics: both are based on axioms (creeds) dealing with a priori undefined (and undefinable) concepts, both have parts that can or cannot be used to illuminate this or that part of (metaphysical or physical respectively) reality, both cannot be verified or dismissed by arguments using only insights from this reality. Posted by George, Monday, 7 April 2008 1:33:10 PM
| |
As usual Sells doesnt really say anything particularly useful. This posting would seem to be an expression of his own unresolved dilemma re which camp he sits in.
On one hand he is very much a modernist,or a product of the profound cultural revolution which began with the Renaissance/Reformation and the rise of scientism and the "culture" of scientism based on left-brained "reason". A "culture" in which everything, including religiously inspired understandings, has to be subject to lengthy left-brained explanations. A "culture" which consists entirely of words. That is to say we all "live" in a "world" of left-brained verbal abstractions,and in which we seldom, if ever, have any direct unmediated contact with anything whatsoever. And in which the "world" out there is considered to be the only "real" world. A "world" which ALL conventional religionists are trapped, whether they choose the seeming simple "truths" of the scriptures or the more complex theological and traditionalist interpretations/dogmas. But on the other hand he seems to want to harken back to simpler times when the "truths" of the Traditional stories were seemlessly interwoven into the culture of everyday life. A pre-literate culture which was also a culture based on a simpler, and quite real, DREAM mind. A magic infused culture in which the Biblical stories were unquestionably real. The DREAM mind is/was the mind that informed every other culture other than that which appeared in Europe at the time of the Renaissance. So called "primitive" peoples, including the Australian so called "aborigines", still live in the DREAM-mind world. A book titled "The Alphabet Versus The Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image" by Leonard Shlain gives a very interesting explanation of the profound cultural shift(s) that accompanied the rise (and dominance) of left brained literary "culture". See: 1. http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 7 April 2008 1:43:09 PM
| |
Dogmatism is rampant in secular humanism. Despite many frauds with the 'missing link', no true science to back up the theory, evolution is still presented as a viable theory. The global warming earth worshippers are full of fear mongering and half truths. Often when evolution is exposed for the fraud it is we see those full of dogmas coming out of the woodwork.
CS Lewis wrote 'I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." Posted by runner, Monday, 7 April 2008 2:11:12 PM
| |
dogmatism
n. Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief. Sellick tells us anti-dogmatism is alive and well. Thank the Cosmos. Now, a question. How many Phillip Adams articles would it take to balance out all the Sellicks on OLO? To the seriously pedantic, this is a rhetorical question. ;-D Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 7 April 2008 3:46:32 PM
|
In the preface to Stanley Hauerwas’ new commentary on Matthew “Rusty” Reno makes the observation that dogmatic theology is necessary for exegesis of the bible and vice versus. The reason that many biblical commentaries are dull and of little use to preaching is that they are written by specialised biblical scholars that lack training in systematic theology. The aim of the Brazos commentary on the bible, of which Hauerwas’ commentary is the first, is to rectify this lack by inviting systematic theologians to write biblical commentaries in an effort to break down the false division between biblical studies and systematic theology.
This is yet another reason why dogmatic theology is important, it teaches us how to read the bible.
Peter Sellick