The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Anti-dogmatism > Comments

Anti-dogmatism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 7/4/2008

Anti-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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Post script.

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
Posted by Sells, Monday, 7 April 2008 10:28:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are many clergy in the Anglican and Uniting denominations who proudly turn their back on the formal study of theology."

Perhaps these clergy are beginning to see what atheists have always seen clearly: that 'theology' is a discipline without a subject. As it is becoming ever harder to convince people that God exists, it becomes ever harder to justify taking time, money and effort to study nothing.

I concede there might be value in studying what theologians have said in the past, but this is properly part of history and/or literary analysis. It might also be useful to study what goes on in people's brains when they think they are having a religious experience -- but this is the province of psychology (or psychiatry). Theology proper has as little foundation in reality as fairyology or unicornology, and is about as useful.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 7 April 2008 3:57:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fratelle, (and Jon J),
I appreciate your unintended confirmation of my analogy between dogmatic theology and pure mathematics: I know of many dismissals of (postgraduate) pure mathematics by people who did not understand what it was about, (and what it was for), not unlike your post regarding dogmatic theology. I can understand your position, however as for myself, I prefer not to enter into discussions about things I do not understand with an emotionally loaded contribution because it would say nothing about the topic in question only about my mental disposition towards it.
Posted by George, Monday, 7 April 2008 5:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

I may not understand pure mathematics, but I can see its results in the physical world, in bridges, planes and computers. Would you like to explain what empirical results have been achieved through the study of theology -- other than more theology, that is?
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 7 April 2008 6:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, does a rhetorical question get a question mark/

Religion without theology is about what then? power? moralising? do-gooding? the insecurity of proponents?

Two random bits of news I heard today- our solar system is 'eating' it's neighbour and the environment is a 'stakeholder' in determining govt. policy. God is dead, long live God.
Posted by palimpsest, Monday, 7 April 2008 8:59:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J

Theology has informed the work of artists, musicians, writers, philosophers, educators, philosophers and practically every aspect of our culture, language and the very way we think.
You see Jon, theology is the shared thought of people who have doubted, questioned and challenged conventional wisdom. They invariably do not hold to your oversimplified and obviously nonsensical ideas of God which imagine a wise old white-haired man who can make everything right with a word or a wave of some magical staff.

Just as applied mathematics represents the pragmatic application of ideas having their conceptual underpinnings in pure maths so religious culture is very much a pragmatic application of concepts underpinned by systematic theology.

There have been times when religion played a more important part in politics and was very much corrupted in the process so there is certainly much to commend your analysis of religious culture. You are wrong, however, to dismiss all of theology on the basis that the church in its corrupt state has promulgated much that is unworthy.
Sola Scriptura was partly theological dialectic and partly political slogan. It was raised to correct a church culture that had diverged far from the basic principles of Jesus’ teaching. It became the founding principle of new religious communities who in turn became the pawns of European politics. It cuts both ways. As Sells points out it has become a dogma of its own.

If Sells is proposing a return to certain ‘dogmas’ purely on the basis of their place in the upholding of church traditions then he certainly does not have my sympathy. That is just a form of fundamentalism. Theology is the business of analysing what has gone before and constructing new ways of understanding that, while in continuity with tradition, are not bound to follow ‘doggedly’ in the footsteps of tradition.

It is a little difficult to tell from this article whether Sells is just nostalgic for traditions now dead or dying or if he is actually proposing a return to the sort of serious theologizing which could turn the church on its ear
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 7 April 2008 9:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George
There is some mistrust of philosophy from the point of view of theology. One of Karl Barth’s most important contributions was to insist that theology used its own methods. He famously refused attempts to impose philosophical systems on theology. Historically, whenever philosophical systems were imposed on theology things went astray. The earliest, of course was classical Greek philosophy in the form of Plato and Aristotle. However, theology did gain from this interaction as the present Pope indicated when he talked about the rationality of faith being derived from the Greeks. This is a long history. In the 17th and 18th century theology suffered from both Descartes and Locke. More recently existentialism distorted theology with its emphasis on the crisis of the individual. So I guess you can proceed to tell the story of the influence of philosophy on theology through its various phases.

Waterboy
Theology is always developing although there are things that are set in concrete. For example, that Jesus is God incarnate, that God reveals himself as Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. These and more are the fixed points by which theology navigates, a bit like the periodic table of the elements in chemistry or atomic theory in physics. Unfortunately, the word “dogmatic” has become a pejorative meaning inflexible and closed to argument
Posted by Sells, Monday, 7 April 2008 11:55:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

I don't mean to be a pedant, but it was Jaroslav Pelikan, not Stanley Hauerwas, who wrote the first volume in the Brazos Press series to which you refer. Pelikan wrote on Acts, and Peter Leithart wrote on 1 & 2 Kings, before Hauerwas' volume on Matthew was released.
Posted by PNJ, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 1:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle and (especially) Jon J,

The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a lecture on Faith and Science during Holy Week that might be of some help here. During the Q and A period, he was asked the following question:

"Does religion have a methodology for finding answers or establishing what is real or truth? If you agree that religion has a methodology would you mind sharing your own personal experience of how you find answers or truth?"

His answer:

"There is I suppose no such thing as religion in general. People are educated and nourished in traditions of understanding and they, if you like, they receive these as proposed, and test them for truth. They may test them for truth at a number of levels. They may test the truth of historical assertions. I'll be back to that on Wednesday. They may test their adequacy to the human condition in its complexity. You may for example find that you don't want to stick with some kinds of religious belief because frankly they don't correspond with the kind of humanity you sense your humanity to be, and other peoples' humanity to be. People do, don't they, grow out of certain kinds of religion because they feel it is not talking about them; the kind of humanity they understand. So that testing for truth is never simply an objective - here's the language, there's the reality. It's that lengthy process by which, I suppose, we establish the truth or adequacy of certain things about our personal commitments, our loyalties, our love, our imagination; much more at that level than the simply scientific."

In light of this, to claim that theology has no subject, or that theology does not make empirically testable claims, is perhaps to both misunderstand the nature of theology, and to ignore the nuances of what empirical tests and verifiability outside the science laboratory might look like.
Posted by PNJ, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 2:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
I had to wait for 24 hours, and in the meantime waterboy answered, I think satisfactorily, your question. Nevertheless, here is my original reply:

What you refer to is mostly applied mathematics, much of it previously (18th-19th century) regarded as pure, speculative, mathematics, i.e. mathematics studied just for its own sake. Contemporary pure mathematics finds its applications in string theory and other models in nuclear physics and cosmology, that are also dismissed by some.

When Eugene Wigner spoke of "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" he had apparently in mind the fact that pure mathematical constructs very often find applications in science, notably physics. You are right, you do not have this "unreasonable effectiveness" of theology, or philosophy, or linguistics, anthropology, arts, etc. Nevertheless, they are part of our culture. There are some people who dismiss any philosophy, and today many more reject any metaphysics or theology, just because no "empirical results have been achieved through the study" of them.

Research (or speculations if you like) in pure mathematics or theology are seldom as weird as speculations "what would the West be like if history skipped the Middle Ages", when philosophy and theology were not yet clearly separated allowing people to consider one but not the other as serious intellectual endeavors. (Yes, I know of Charles Freeman‘s “Closing of the Western Mind”, and no, I have not read it). So perhaps the "empirical result" of Christian theology can be seen in its contribution to Western culture as a thesis that created its own antithesis (Enlightenment) leading to a synthesis, a hopefully more tolerant world, accepted from both the inside as well as the outside of a religious frame of mind.

I am afraid this will not convince you. Of course, one can be an educated person without knowing anything about homological algebra or about the meaning of dogmatic theology. I only think that in both cases one should accept that these are parts of our cultural heritage, and that there are people for whom these things make perfect sense, and who can see how they are related to reality.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:59:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,
You are so right when you say that the meaning of the word “dogmatic” has become pejorative. This explains much of the misunderstandings we get in these discussions. One cannot seriously argue a philosophical point using popularized meanings of technical terms; for instance, like when one says "illogical" meaning just "against common sense".

Your "fixed points" of dogmatic theology (that Jesus is God incarnate, that God reveals himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), provide a nice example of the axiomatic foundations of dogmatic theology, where the terms used are undefined and undefinable. Something like you do not define the terms "set" or "element of" when listing the axioms of (some) set theory. Or you do not define the terms "point", "line" etc. (though you can point to what they usually mean in everyday life, to make it easier to understand what it is all about) when listing the axioms of Euclidean (or non-Euclidean) geometry. You cannot argue about dogmatic theology, about set theory or Euclidean geometry with somebody who has problems with accepting these undefinable initial concepts.

As I understand theology, one has to distinguish between dogmatic or fundamental (a mathematician might be tempted to call it axiomatic) theology and systematic theology. It is true that philosophy is more relevant to systematic theology. Paul Tillich, whom I would prefer to Karl Barth, calls the former the content and the latter the form of theology. You refer approvingly to the Pope's Regensburg lecture, where he emphasized, as I understood him, the systematic approach by talking "about the rationality of faith being derived from the Greeks". On the other hands, he once implicitly criticised Tillich for not paying enough attention to dogmatic theology in his trilogy Systematic Theology (c.f. http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/548/Biblical_Interpretation_in_Crisis__Joseph_Ratzinger.html).

PNJ, thanks for the very interesting quote by the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Testing for truth” is a complicated enough philosphy of science problem; it is much more complicated when the human condition and religion are involved.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 8:05:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells

As you might have guessed I am somewhat ambivalent wrt the ‘givens’ of theology. I think the analogy with mathematics eventually proves to be ambiguous and misleading. Strict insistence on the axioms of Euclidean geometry would have kept the fascinating field of non-Euclidean geometry hidden from us along with all the discoveries that flowed from it. Some of science’s great discoveries turned on the point of a challenged axiom. It turned out, for example that Newton’s results were useful rather than being strictly correct.
Certainly the givens you accept and upon which you and your Anglican colleagues build you theology are givens to you. Equally obviously my Jewish friends do not share all of your givens and yet worship the same God, find meaning for life etc. As a matter of observable fact Churches, Communities and whole societies are consructed upon givens other than yours.
To construct your theology upon certain ‘givens’ is entirely reasonable. To insist, however, upon the rightness of your givens over my givens is the point at which you drift from dogmatics into dogma.
Having said that I would make the point that Christian theology built on the givens you have outlined has been remarkably productive and has given us many of the core values that underpin our society even as it becomes increasingly secular. It has provided the language that has supported a conversation that has lasted two thousand years and promises to continue for some time to come. It has been absolutely formative of the world as you and I know it. Given all this it is surely a thing to be studied, understood and sometimes even honoured. It is a mighty work still in the making but will cease to have any more than historical interest if its givens have become its idols.
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 4:04:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,
“analogy with mathematics eventually proves to be ambiguous and misleading”
Any analogy can be ambiguous, if wrongly applied, and misleading if carried too far. The analogy I had in mind concerned only the corresponding rational structures, which in case of maths is more or less all that there is, whereas in case of theology it is only its bare, rational, skeleton.

“Strict insistence on the axioms of Euclidean geometry would have kept the fascinating field of non-Euclidean geometry hidden...”
Strict insistence or not, people suspected that the fifth axiom was not really an axiom, that it could by derived from the other four, until Lobachevski and Bolyai showed its independence by constructing a model where only the first four did hold. Allegedly Gauss himself had similar thoughts but considered them too weird, and did not publish them.

Well, if that is true, Gauss was probably afraid of being ridiculed for daring to think beyond the boundaries of the “only true” Euclidean geometry, not burned at stakes as heretics were centuries before him for daring to think beyond the boundaries of the “only true“ Mediaeval version of Christianity. This difference, is somehow related to the fact that nobody emotionally “insists upon the rightness of one set of givens over another set of givens“ when talking about axioms of geometry, because no personal existential questions are involved when choosing this or that set of axioms (givens, if you like).

However, Euclidean geometry was not “abolished”, neither was the Medieval vision (model) of Christianity. Both are now understood (interpreted) within a wider context. In case of geometry this context is the Klein’s Erlangen Program (1872), in case of theology there is no fixed “program” accepted by all involved, but rather a whole network of various theologies, based on - all or some - traditional dogmas, i.e. religious axioms that are not falsifiable through observations/experiments, and refer to undefinable initial concepts. The “rightness of your givens over my givens“ is a question of faith and tolerance, and as such is irrelevant to the analogy with strictly axiomatic systems like in mathematics.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 10:45:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are to rely totally on our own perception, observations and reasoning we naturally argue, "Faith is the power of the imagination, which makes the real unreal, and the unreal real: in direct contradiction with the truth of the senses, with the truth of reason. Faith denies what objective reason affirms, and affirms what it denies."

To marry the logic of Science to an expression of Christian dogma will bare only contradiction to the point of abstraction. 'Materialism', in its purely classical sense, will attack dogmatically the triune tenet, and in complete antithesis within its own form state, " the truth of polytheism is again affirmed, and the truth of monotheism is denied. To require the reality of the persons is to require the unreality of the unity, and conversely, to require the reality of the unity is to require the unreality of the persons. Thus in the holy mystery of the Trinity – that is to say, so far as it is supposed to represent a truth distinct from human nature – all resolves itself into delusions, phantasms, contradictions, and sophisms."

In comprehending Karl Barth's labeling of the rejection of “orthodoxy” as “barbaric,” uneducated, and disrespectful, his defence of the Council of Chalcedon’s articulation of “hypostatic union” is apt. His dismissal of the modern weariness of such articulations as “plebeian”, and the result of a “barbaric intellectuality”, are of continued and succinct relevance.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 10 April 2008 9:52:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh, for heaven's sake. religious dogma as analogous to mathematics? mathematicians, both pure and applied, understand they are dealing with ideal objects. what on earth does that have to do with the crass concretisation of religious belief?

if you want to talk about god as some kind of idealisation, fine. but i don't see what that has to do with the archaic bigotry of australia's religious spokesmen.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 10 April 2008 7:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Faith is ... in direct contradiction with the truth of ... reason. Faith denies what objective reason affirms, and affirms what it denies."
This is a quote from ‘Essence of Christianity’ by Ludwig Feuerbach, the famous 19th century critic of religion, (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec25.htm), hardly somebody with 21st century insights from science (or mathematics or logic for that matter). In particular, he could not have had the insights from complementarity theory suggesting that his famous “man created God in his own image“ is a complementary rather than opposing statement to “God created man in His own image“.

“To marry the logic of Science to an expression of Christian dogma...”
There is no such thing as ‘logic of Science‘ only one logic, formalised into mathematical logic (unless one uses the popularised understanding of logic as common sense), that structures not only any rational thinking but also the working of computers. There is, however, a methodology of science and nobody wants to ‘marry‘ it to any workable methodology of religion or theology. Some people see analogies between these two approaches, (c.f. Ian Barbour‘s ground breaking ‘Myths, Models and Paradigms; The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language, SCM 1974), some disagree (c.f. Hans Kung‘s ‘The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion‘, Eerdmans 2007). The emphasis is again on analogy that, at most, can be carried only that far. I certainly did not want to carry too far my analogy between (some) ‘givens’ of dogmatic theology and (some) axioms of a mathematical theory.

Perhaps Paul Tillich’s words about phenomenological description can be applied also to analogy (including my own), namely, that it “can be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, that (it) illuminates other related ideas, and that it makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect (more) understandable.“

bushbasher,
Some people understand when they are told “to imagine the size of Jupiter, think of Earth as a pea, then Jupiter would be the size of an orange”, Some don’t, and exclaim “what on earth does Jupiter have to do with oranges?”
Posted by George, Thursday, 10 April 2008 8:57:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George

You are a gentleman and a scholar! Faith and toleration are evident in every word you have written here.

It is no small thing you have said, that the givens of Theology involve 'personal existential questions' so that Theology becomes emotive in a way that Mathematics does not. Indeed mathematics is nothing more than the manipulation of symbols and patterns conrolled by the rules of algebra. People are, of course, not symbols and are not entirely rational. In fact we reveal our true selves most clearly in the honest expression of emotions, not reason.

If theology begins with 'personal existential questions' and seeks to give words to the inexpressible then perhaps its logic is closer to the logic of poetry or music than to mathematics. Perhaps counterpoint, dissonance and resolution are the structures of theology rather than axioms and syllogisms. At my funeral I think Id rather hear Faure's Requiem than the First 20 theorems of Euclid Book I. If theology is like music then our differences reflect the great beauty and diversity of Creation rather than mere contradictions that must be explained and eliminated.

Yes, it's just another analogy with its own flaws and limitations because theology is not mathematics or science or narrative or poetry or music
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:33:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
george i'm happy with metaphors and models, as long as they are illustrative. i have no problem with god as some abstract notion of the ideal (though i question what theorem you might derive). but, once again: what does dogma have to do with any of this?

what do i see of religious traditionalists? self-righteous fools telling justice kirby that god's not happy with him. and why? because some other self-righteous fools wrote down the same bigotry a couple thousand years ago. THAT'S what religious dogma is. it has none of the flexibility or humility, OR truth, OR beauty or poetry of mathematical discovery.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:45:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,
Thank you for the compliment, but I am just an old man trying to see the world from many perspectives. I agree with almost all that you wrote, since it does not contradict what I said. I am not so sure whether “mathematics is nothing more than the manipulation of symbols and patterns“ but certainly its justification is in its “unreasonable effectiveness” mentioned above, and you are write that in case of theology, its justification can be seen (among other things) in its relevance to 'personal existential questions'. These are two very different justifications, and no analogy can bridge them.

I too prefer music, or some other artistic expression, to a dry axiomatic/dogmatic system, when wanting to “experience” religion, the same as when embracing my wife I do not want to “experience” her skeleton though I realise that without a backbone she could not exist.

bushbasher,
I can see, you have a problem with religion, and I am sorry I cannot help you with that. I do not understand, for instance, Turkish, but I do not have a problem with that, i.e. I do not feel the urge to enter into discussions about, say, the Turkish grammar.

Only you and nobody but you can tell whether you are unable or unwilling to admit the possibility that the “finger“ you are looking at (as dirty as some parts of it might be) is not all that there is, that it might be pointing to a “moon” beyond our direct reach. Sorry for another analogy, or rather metaphor.
Posted by George, Friday, 11 April 2008 1:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PNJ
Thank you for the correction about the Brazos commentaries, I actually found the information myself from the dust cover of Hauerwas’ commentary after I posted.
Also thanks for the quote from Williams, I am sure he is right, there is a recognition that the gospel does describe us and the world but which also makes us see anew.

While reading about antidogmatism I found that the term was used by John Henry Newman and was one of his main gripes with the Anglican Church. Now there is another tale!

George.
Great article on exegesis by the then Ratzinger. I am increasingly impressed by him.

Waterboy
I have enjoyed your conversation with George: the most intelligent discussion on these pages for some time. However, I do have a problem with your relativism. I know it sounds broad minded and inclusive but the fact that other people think differently has little to do with the truth. We cannot constrain our search for truth and beauty because others have trodden a different path.

Bushbasher
You have mistaken the meaning of dogmatic with the popular pejorative. Theology, or any other system of thought, could not exist without its core understandings. These do not need to produce judgment of others, indeed, one of the central doctrines of Christianity is that God loved the ungodly, the unworthy, the ungrateful and the sinner
Posted by Sells, Friday, 11 April 2008 10:31:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well spotted on the Marxist dialectic, George, where "..the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." (Marx) This is quite the antithesis to religious belief and accounts only for what can be empirically derived. And quite so, strictly speaking, there isn't a "logic of Science" but it is rather, along with mathematics, the cement holding the structure of science together.

One could perhaps say, scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic but rather through 'induction' - whereas mathematics is a process of deductive logic. Karl Popper's rejection of classical empiricism, however, had him maintain that as scientific theories are abstract in nature they can only be tested indirectly by reference to their implications. The pragmatic approach of the 'scientific method' therefore will not ultimately resolve or reveal all 'matters'. As Stephen Hawking explains, "No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

Dialectical reasoning has the purpose of resolving a contradiction - perhaps a true measure of scholasticism, as the early Latin's intended. This where the ancient classical philosophers and medieval Christian theology met, no doubt, in the early formation of Christian dogma. From what can be inferred from Popper, this dogma will necessarily remain beyond the realm of science, as science can have no allusion to absolutes.

The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. Ditto for mathematics, as Albert Einstein observed: "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."
Posted by relda, Friday, 11 April 2008 11:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick beings: "Anti-dogmatism is that movement in the Protestant churches that would dismiss the authority of dogmatic theology inherited from the past."

if it looks like a dogmatic duck and quacks like a dogmatic duck ...

george, your a good guy, a good-humored guy and a smart guy. but a metaphor is not an argument, and a poorly thought out metaphor is not even a poor argument.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 11 April 2008 8:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relda,
I think you are right in principle: for a (pure) mathematician deduction is more important, for a working scientist induction is; nevertheless a mathematician needs induction (observation or just intuition) from time to time to “get new ideas”, and the scientist has to sit down and think about what follows from the theory his observations have suggested. The same about Popper’s criterion of falsifiability: it is a classic but there are instances when it could be misleading. Recent physical theories, candidates claiming to bridge over the disagreements between relativity theory and QM, (strings, M-theory, quantum loop theory), make, I think, the relation between physics, epistemology and (pure) mathematics more complicated than it was in Popper’s time. Nevertheless, I agree that Popper will remain philosophy of science’s Newton.

I an afraid I cannot agree that mathematics tells us “nothing“ about the real world. Had Einstein meant that with his famous maxim that you quote, he would not have devoted his life to a physical theory that was going against common sense observations, and was comprehensible only through rather abstract mathematics. However, it is true that mathematics cannot model, and explain, all manifestations of the material world, and in this sense its applications cannot be exact, i.e. irrefutable. The same as theology and “intellectual consent“ does not tell us “nothing“ about religion and religious experience, it only is not sufficient to account for all aspects of religion, for the whole variety of religious experience.

bushabasher, I agree, except that I never wanted to argue with you. Our differences concerned style, not rational disagreements that could be settled by an argument.
Posted by George, Friday, 11 April 2008 11:24:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
I would agree, our principles are aligned. My issue, however, is more a focus on the ambiguity of mathematics when providing models for reality. As there are mathematical truths which correspond to reality, conversely, there are some which do not. As Richard Feyman said, "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation."

It is quite possible to have a true mathematical relationship, that suggests a particular physical model, and yet the theory may be completely wrong. Theology, incidentally, quite easily falls into this category through creating and studying models of God. As previously said, neither logic or mathematics alone can give us a 'new reality' - they are merely the objects of reality.

Mathematics, as with theology, is a product of human thought and both attempt a portrayal of reality. Aquinas modeled the Trinity on the properties of relationship, knowledge and desire, also derived from Aristotle. Models as such are also inherently symbolic - albeit in their misunderstanding will inevitably lack coherence. Some older and more traditional models may in fact prove inadequate, but perhaps another subject.

Of recent time the modeling, as provided by Quantum mechanics and relativity, describe the basic network structure of the universe, and can be applied at any level of complexity. It would seem, there are more possibilities in most situations than can be expressed in physical messages, giving rise to the evolutionary process of natural selection. Einstein felt the incompleteness of quantum mechanics to be a defect, it is seen here as a clear manifestation of the openness of the universe. It also suggests that no local manifestation of god is capable of intelligent design that is a deterministic progression into the future along a preordained path. As you suggest, there are permutations of a "whole variety of religious experience" quite legitimately out there.
Posted by relda, Saturday, 12 April 2008 8:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells

Relativism is a problem to seekers of certainty but not necessarily to seekers of truth.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 12 April 2008 11:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relda,
I admit, it was I who brought mathematics into correlation with theology on this forum by pointing to formal similarities between undefinable initial terms entering into unfalsifiable axioms of some mathematical theory, and undefinable initial concepts entering into unfalsifiable “givens” of (a) dogmatic theology. Of course, I also admit that there are many aspects of mathematics and of dogmatic theology that cannot be correlated this way. The epistemological meaning and usefulness of each one of them has to be explored (and defended) separately.

It is also easier, and I think not only for me, to defend the role of mathematics in providing knowledge about the outside world, than that of theology. And this not only because the “outside world“ for theology is quite different, and admittedly more ambiguous, than the “outside world” mathematics can provide understanding of. So let me keep to mathematics, although, I am afraid, this brings us too far away from the topic of the article we were supposed to comment on.

What Feynman apparently meant was that not all (pure) mathematical constructs need to be fruitful in the sense of being applicable in a viable physical theory. Well that is quite obvious. There are many mathematicians (I would say most of them) who believe in the reality of a world of mathematics separate from the physical world, the so-called Platonists. They think that the mathematician discovers, rather than creates, although there is always this dual aspect of discovering-creating to his/her work. I sometimes think that something similar could be said about the dual aspect of a (systematic) theologian‘s work, but I do not want to stress that point.

It is now generally accepted that Einstein was simply wrong in his mistrust of quantum mechanics. Intelligent design means a different (widely accepted) concept in theology, and a different (widely discredited) concept in biology. I am not sure which one you were referring to. God created (or designed if you like) the chance-and-necessity mechanism (c.f. Jacques Monod) driving the evolution of the universe, but that is a proposition from metaphysics or theology, not science.
Posted by George, Sunday, 13 April 2008 12:15:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
I'm not sure there is any real distinguishing between theolgocial or biological ID. Sells wrote in 2005 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=167), "intelligent design is a more sophisticated version that attempts to escape from the absurdities of creationism." and certainly regarded it, per se, as unambiguous when he continues later with, "All natural theology is therefore an absurdity."

Sells, no doubt, is in direct opposition to William Dembski, a Southern Baptist academic (Ph D, Maths, Philosophy; M D, Theology) , who sees ID as a bridge between science and theolgoy. On this one, however, I'd have to agree with Sells and say no such bridge exists. "Leave science to the scientists", as he'd say.

Sell's suggests that many believe in God for the wrong and perhaps superficial reasons - ID can certainly lend itself toward to such superficiality. As a recent poll suggests, the overwhelming reason people believe in God is because of the order and complexity they observe in the natural world and the evidence these are supposed to provide for design.

The argument for a natural theology is certainly contained in ID and the contradiction in Dembski's argument is this. He states traditional theologies, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Mormon take as their basic datum a divine revelation. This revelation is encapsulated in inspired and authoritative texts that have an objective sense and are binding on believers. Natural theology, by definition, will 'naturally' counter (or contradict) this authority. Dembsky continues in his argument that the unchanging God of traditional theologies necessarily gives way to the evolving God of process theologies. This finally gives way, he argues, to a panentheism with its modified transcendence where God is inseparable from and dependent on the world. However, the Second Council of Constantinople, the universal Church , proclaimed a panentheistic vision of the Trinity, where the essence (ousia) of God is completely transcendent, and yet, immanent.

Can the dogmatics of Christianity where, "the hard slog of finding God in our received scriptural traditions" (Sells), outperform the heresy of ID? Perhaps so, but it is something we must discover for ourselves - hence the dialectic.
Posted by relda, Sunday, 13 April 2008 10:33:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relda,
Thanks for the rich feedback. Sell’s dislike of natural theology (the God of philosopher’s vs. the God of Abraham etc.) is well known. Creationists were originally people who wanted to bring God into existing gaps of this or that scientific explanation, but anti-religionists like to lump them with anybody who believes in God. I agree that ID, or just “design” are terms normally not used in theology.

I have to admit that I cannot follow Dembski’s reasoning using statistics, but since I do not think that you can prove the existence of God by scientific (or mathematical) methods anyhow, I accept the argument of other statisticians who claim Dembski is wrongly applying mathematical statistics. ID as a scientific theory seems to be (from e.g. a European point of view, Christian or not) just an American oddity.

The ID people remind me of somebody who has won Tattslotto, and thinks some benevolent designer wanted to reward him. Nevertheless, there are “designers”, people who “created” Tattslotto using their knowledge of statistics, the same as God created (or designed) the world, including everything that Richard Dawkins understands about neo-darwinism or genetics, using evolution. However, this belief is part of my faith, it is nothing one can prove or falsify using scientific methods or observations. John Polkinghorne, for instance, says that God lets the world create itself via evolution, including making mistakes and hurting itself, because there is no other way to create beings with a free will. This is the (natural) theological meaning of the term “creation“ that does not have a counterpart in science.

I also have to confess that I have problems with process theology. My favourite joke is that I can understand Bertrand Russell but I do not agree with him, whereas I agree with Alfred North Whitehead but I do not understand him. Process involves time, and that is “in the eye of the beholder“, not necessarily a part of God‘s nature that we can understand nothing about (except for symbolic representations in this or that Holy Book).
Posted by George, Monday, 14 April 2008 1:43:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George and Sells,

I suspect Einstein still had one foot back in Classic Mechanics, whereas Heisenberg was less restrained. The former would see events in terms of cause and effect only and latter in terms of determinism and indeterminism.

Science allows for the use of "reasonable agreement" to progress theory until a better theory comes along. Theology tends to be more doctrinaire established by church councils.

The Trinity and Virgin birth doctrines are held too solidly by the Christian given the documentation available before the twentieth century. The Dead Sea Scrolls would such that earlier theologies did a thorough work over. The Sons of God referred to the Righteous [towards Man] and the Pious [towards God]. The Damamascus Document [?] would suggest Jesus was attempting to establish an eternal Davanic Kingdom of Heaven [of the Righteous and Pious] on Earth in opposition to the Herodians who were Idumaens not having the equal claim to the Throne of the Jews as the Herods [Roman puppets].

The Council of Constantinople [381?] did not have the resources to establish valid doctrine of the Trinity and other councils the use of the word Virgin. Moreover, Jesus' natural birth would give greater claim to the House of David [via Heli and Joseph]. Herein, Jesus would be the Son of Man. Pilot was not Proconsul of Rome he was a Prefect, a Tax Collector. By redendering unto Caesar that which was Caesar, I spectulate, Jesus was distancing himself from the zealots, whom were trouablesome to the Romans and defied Jews paying taxes. Herein, Jesus' comment to Pilot lessened his chances of being crucified [against his subsititionary mission]. The churches seeme to have missed this possibibility. Jesus was more inclusive of the Gentiles and all nations under the Kingdom of Heaven ruled by David, than whe the anti-Roman Zealots. The were anti-Roman because the Romans were occupies, made Jews pay taxes and were unclean to make sacrafices to God.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 10:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... the Second Council of Constantinople ... - relda

I suspect that very few Christians would realise that the development of this doctrine of the centuries, because they, the church-goers, indwell [Polanyi] in the performance of the mass/sermon, wherein the priest/minister is the authory.

Regarding the members of the Trinity equally sharing the same ousia, herein, it is intersting the Bible itself presents the inequality in the members of the Trinity in that the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spitit. Triune godheads go back to Eygptian [Serapis]a and this Christian Trinity became enforced doctrine between 325-381.

Matt 12:30-32 suggest inequalities:

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost sent by Jesus Christ it shall not be forgiven him,

Also Luke 1:32:

"He will be great and called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will "give" [emphasis added] him the Throne of his father. [The House of David?] [Did Jesus receive the Throne of David? James seems more worthy at Law, because was not illegitimate. Virgin birth, wich can mean birth when then the virgin is merely bethoved. Jesus "would" have been illegitimate.

Also Dead Scholl Sea 4Q246 (Plate 4, Column 2(1)) - {Trans. Eisenman & Wise]:

He will called the son of God of the Most High. Like shooting stars [My comment: means transient kingdoms] tha they saw thus will be their Kingdom ...[a war period]... His Kingdom will an Eternal Kingdom, amd he will be Righteous in all his Ways.

The above suggest to the a monethesist God given a son of Righteous eternal rule of the Kingdom of God on Earth via The House of David.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 20 April 2008 3:02:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-theistically, the thin edgeof the wedge regarding the House of David starts the father, when the [Idumaean] Herodians delegated power to the House of David, the [lowly] task of converting the Gentiles [Thiering].

* My fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins, is wrong about the need Jesus to go thousand years [?] before Christ. His research is poor. With the rise rise of Herod ind 41 BCE the mission to Jewish Diaspora started. The birth of Jesus 7 BCE are separateby only 36 years.

Herod I the Great died in Jericho, 4 BCE. Mathew 2 seems a little wonky too about Herod.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 20 April 2008 3:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Oliver,
In regard to a so-called inequality within the godhead, one can perhaps falsely surmise, there is both a unity and a diversity, or a "yin" and a "yang" - this, however, is likely to fall short of 'finding' the Trinity. The Greek (basically Aristotelian) concept of God has initially caused a deep confusion between cosmology and theology, perhaps a dead-end to science as we now know it. A lack of transcendence in the concept of God gave no distinguishing between heaven and earth - ignored here is the idea that there need not be a relationship between the two. For the Greeks, nothing could be created out of 'nothing' and the world. To let go of this 'necessary' relation between the Creator and the Cosmos was for the Greek Mind blasphemous.

Jewish and Christian writers of the Hellenistic period heightened the sense of the relative autonomy of nature - "When the Lord created his works from the beginning, and, in making them determined their boundaries." (Jesus ben Sirach, early second cent. BC). The dynamic character of early Christian communities, on the other hand, was deeply rooted in their belief in the totality of creation (including all matter) and the consequent possibility of recreation. One should also regard, "...but the 'law of cause and effect' of Plato and Aristotle had shaped the Newtonian cosmology via medieval scholasticism with Western thought imprisoned by the (dualistic) closed system of cosmology for two thousand years.

As we are learning to deal with the invisible structures of space and time (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Theory) we are aligned also in a struggle to understand the universe. One would perhaps imagine the efforts to be much more within our grasp. Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities. Perhaps as always, it is the egocentric pride and self-righteousness operating which limit the creative expression of others. Stereotyped religious dogma cannot perceive forgiveness, and is eternally prepared to do battle with the insights of the Spirit of Truth.
Posted by relda, Sunday, 20 April 2008 8:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello relda,

Thank you for an interesting reply. When thinking of the the Ancient Greeks, I tend see "two" Greeks; Macedonian Attic Court Greek, and, Koine [Common] Greek, which I suspect was translated into Vulgar Latin by the Romans.

Between 322BCE (Death of Alexander)and 476CE (Fall of the Western Roman Empire) much knowldge would have been lost, owing to poor translations into less esotic language of the centuries. That said,
Jesus when challenges to others, he seems to lean more towards the Attic form than Paul's Hellensation and later the direction of the Council of Nicaea.

I agree with your comments regarding the Greek Concept of Heaven. Moreover, if memory serves, there were two Heavenly periods before the Olympians. Albeit, later Christianity, while being Hellenised, did develop the concept of the Crystal Spheres having a distinction between the Nature [Earth] and the supernatural [Heaven]. That is the reason the Vatican astronomers baulked at looking through Galileo's telescope: the theological implications were enormous. Here, the Churches have been consistant in their opposition to Gnosis in the fouth century, to destroying Gregor Mendel's' genetics papers [in 1884, when he died] and up to the present day.

Trinities from Eygptian thought would have fitted-in better with Roman pantheism, than with the Greeks, as you clearly say.

"Yin" and "Yang" are complementary concepts. For this reason, some Ancient Chinese believed one should be only mildly good, because being very good would be complemented very bad events.

I think reductionism [except Greek Atomism] comes from the few centuries leading to the classical mechanics of the nineteenth century. In this sense, I posit Einstein, though brilliant, was really not a person of the twentieth century in the manner of Heisenberg.

This century, I think, we will see a change in thought away from cause-and-effect towards infinite indeterminancy-and-determinancy: As already postulated with manifolds [say 6-D] having only some of the dimensions collapsing into our 4-D space-time? [Penrose]. George would know more about this than me.

We also need out of the square thinkers like Susan Greenfield and Murray Gell-Man.

George,

Hello, if you are reading this post.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 21 April 2008 4:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Oliver,

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about history of (classical) philosophy to comment on your (and relda’s). observations. However, space-time models that assume more dimensions than 3+1, give a total of 4+1 (Kaluza-Klein, revisited recently by Lisa Randall if I understand her properly), or 25+1 (string theory) or 10+1 (superstring theories, M-theory). I never heard of 6-D, nor of Penrose’s model of space-time that would differ from the above.

Relda put it very nicely: “Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities”. You need an open structured understanding of reality, without reducing it a priori to observable (through our senses, instruments or just mathematical models) physical reality. Mathematics (starting with a priori axioms or ‘dogmas’, see my previous posts) helps us to understand the “invisible structure of space and time (relda), so we should not be surprised that one starts with some a priori dogmas in trying to understand the directly unobservable.

Believing that there is an objective reality or Truth, is not the same as believing that I am in possession of that Truth with my scientific theory or religious perspective or creed, (that at best might ‘truly reflect‘ only one part, one feature of that reality). We all should be SEEKERS of the one Truth (as unattainable as it is on its own), rather than - tolerant or intolerant - OWNERS of many truths.
Posted by George, Monday, 21 April 2008 7:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello George,

I never heard of 6-D, nor of Penrose’s model of space-time that would differ from the above.

- My source is on the high seas enroute from Hong Kong to Oz. Alternatively, I have things wrong. If memory serves not all (n) dimensions were possible. I think 6-D was allowable? Not all of the manifold resides in our universe's space-time.

“Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities”. You need an open structured understanding of reality, without reducing it a priori to observable (through our senses, instruments or just mathematical models) physical reality.

- Agree fully.

Mathematics (starting with a priori axioms or ‘dogmas’, see my previous posts) helps us to understand the “invisible structure of space and time" (relda), so we should not be surprised that one starts with some a priori dogmas in trying to understand the directly unobservable.

- Some the "invisble might be outside of "our" time and space.

- I am developing three times three clusters of nine cross-cultural cultures to knowledge discovery processes. I had thought of calling each cluster of scales an "axiom", but I am now having second thoughts, because if I have internal consistency, validity and reliability and can build a structural equation and/or a hierarchical linear model, the results should be more than self-evident. That said, there will still be some intangibility regarding the latent variables. Within the year I should be able to break the fundamentals of two cultures down to equations, but there will certainly be something missing.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 21 April 2008 8:38:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
Thanks for the feedback.
>> I think 6-D was allowable? Not all of the manifold resides in our universe's space-time.<<
Of course, in mathematics you can investigate manifolds of any dimension you like (even infinite) but only manifolds of certain dimensions serve as the underlying model of space-time in physical theories as I hinted above. The jury is still out on which one of them is the best model.

>> Some the "invisble might be outside of "our" time and space.<<
That would include space-time associated with parallel universies, that can still be “observed” (rightly or wrongly) through (the mathematics of) physical theories. I think Transcendence in the classical (theological) meaning of the word refers to Something beyond any world - universe or multiverse - that can be grasped mathematically.

I am sorry, but I did not understand your last paragraph, in particular “there will still be some intangibility regarding the latent variables. Within the year I should be able to break the fundamentals of two cultures down to equations“.
Posted by George, Monday, 21 April 2008 10:30:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,

Hello:

Ooops. 322 BCE is indeed the date taken as the fall of Ancient Greece but not when Alexander III [The Great] died. Alexander died 15 June 323. Sorry. Antipater's defeat of Athens occurred in 322 BCE. Albeit, the Peloponnese did last a yearlonger. Thus, one could argue the Lamian War ended in 321 BCE.

Regarding his Grandson* of God doctrine, Alexander twice referred to himself the Son of God [Zeus Amon-Re; a duality in pantheism not a godhead]: at Guagamela and Opis.

*Son of Heracles, who was the direct son of Zeus. Alexander also claimed to be Son of Thetis. Alexander (et al) saw himself as the composite of Achilles and and Heracles.

As John the Baptist seems to have justified Jesus (?), Alexander was said to have been justified divine by The Temple of Zeus Ammon. Alexander felt himself the divine governor of his kingdom on Earth like Jesus (?) ; the attachment is to Odysseus:

Regarding Alexander; "the divine Odysseus, who was the father of the peoples he ruled" [Plutarch] and "it is a faith that does not die" [Hammond]. The eternal Kingdom of Alexander on Earth. Thus he was claiming to be divine and mediator of the World.

Interestingly, like Jesus, Alexander does seem to act at times, as subordinate. Jesus cried, "why has thou forsaken me" from the cross. In a similar context, Alexander offered sacrifices after Hephaestion [his male partner] died. He saw the death, as a punishment from Zeus Ammon [God the Father, if you like], for ignoring clerical directives.


George,

Greetings:

[1] I was saying I feel my hypotheses will in large be confirmed and a helpful valid structural equation will be developed, yet it will not capture the very essence of cultures, even if the model works to accurately forecast outcomes.

[2] May I venture to say your religiosity and your fine ability to conceive abstracts mathematically are linked; that a manifold can reside across multi-verses and the conception of Theism are both abstracts? Furthermore, you see atheists stuck with classical mechanics thinking-style deliberations, unable to extend themselves?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 7:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
>> your religiosity and your fine ability to conceive abstracts mathematically are linked <<
I am not sure what you mean by religiosity, but yes, a person’s world view and his/her specialisation are always linked. A doctor or psychologist will have a different insight into, say, faith and the associated tenets, than a physicist like Polkinghorne, or a mathematician.

>> a manifold can reside across multi-verses <<
Manifolds (carrying, say, a pseudo-Riemannian structure, like those used to model space-time in Einstein’s GR) are pure mathematical concepts that - mathematical Platonists believe - have their own independent existence, hence “reside“ in a world of their own, independent of the physical world (see e.g. Penrose). The Multiverse, if it exists apart from our universe, still belongs to the physical world, and manifolds “reside“ in them as little as the telescope you look through at Alpha Centauri “reside“s in that stellar constellation.

>> manifold ... and the conception of Theism are both abstracts? <<
I ma not sure I understand what you mean. My previous remarks about the relation between mathematics and the physical world are independent of what one thinks about the existence of God (irrespective of how you define both “existence” and “God”).

However, you are right in the sense that what I know (or think I know) about the relation between the mathematical and physical worlds INSPIRES my understanding of the rationale behind my faith, i.e. the relation between the world of theological concepts and dogmas, and the Transcendental that they are supposed to refer to. If you like, for me mathematics helps me to follow Anselm‘s maxim about my faith seeking understanding. Nevertheless, this is a strictly personal inspiration that I would not like to turn into some kind of universal recipe for finding that understanding.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 2:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My understanding of the historical Jesus (if this is possible), Oliver, is one needs to understand Judaism , and more particularly, Jewish Messiahism. In comparing the 'divine' aspect of Alexander III and Jesus Christ contrasting between the temporal vs spiritual (metaphysical?) needs to be made.
Modern scholars discern four kinds of messianology in the years between 170 BCE and 140 CE.
1. The Messiah as military leader
2. The Messiah as sage
3. The Messiah as high-priest
4. The 'prophet like Moses'

Jesus of Nazareth and Simon ben Kosiba are the only Jewish leaders who are positively identified as Messiahs in Jewish sources. In stories about Jesus, however, we notice that although his followers identify him as the Messiah, Jesus consistently responds ambivalently.

It is quite likely John the Baptist was inspired by the idea that the Messiah was to be someone like Moses. The Aramaic adaptation of the story of the Exodus shows God protected the Hebrews - rendered as protection by Moses and the Messiah, who will be the Hebrews' heavenly guide. The Messiah and Moses were thought to have come into existence before God created the universe (e.g., First book of Enoch 48.3). Therefore, the Messiah can be called 'son of God' and 'first-begotten' (Hebrews 1.6).

Ambivalence within Christianity towards Judaism exists; on the one hand it gives account of an allegedly outdated ritualism, but on the other, a panorama of awesome history, a source of authority and blessing whereby the Church must display itself as the new Israel or the 'true' Judaism - something, quite arguably, as promoted by the Apostle Paul but not Jesus. Both Jesus and Paul seemed aligned to the tenets of the Pharisees who were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires. Modern scholarship suggests they (the Pharisees) were a dedicated group upholding religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. Some Christian interpretation, undoubtedly deviates from this through narrow and isolated reading of the Gospel narrative.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 11:34:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,

As you correctly observe, there is reason to believe that the early Christians and the Pharisaic branch of Judaism had much in common and may have had sympathies with each other up to the time of the Jewish revolt of AD67.
Antipathy between the two groups arose from the Christians' decision to retreat from Jerusalem to Pella prior to Titus' invasion of Jerusalem. This was regarded by the Jews who remained to defend Jerusalem as an act of betrayal and apostasy.
Since most Christian writings post-date the revolution and destruction of the Temple it is quite possible that much of this antipathy has been projected back to Jesus' own time. The genuine Pauline letters pre-date the revolt.
The identification of Bar Kochba, the second century revolutioary leader, as Messiah would have further exacerbated negative feelings between Jews and Christians.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy,
The subject of Jewish-Christianity, the middle ground between rabbinic Judaism and so called Pauline Christianity, is probably quite as fascinating as it is complex. I found your comments interesting.

Between the first and sixth centuries, the manifestations of The Jewish religion were varied and complex, far more varied than the extant Talmudic literature would have led us to believe. From the first century onwards, the Judaic Christian sects of the Diaspora and the "sayings gospel" tradition started to become increasingly integrated into the Hellenistic cultural background of the many gentiles that converted to Christianity. The development of Christianity called for new religious texts, that would highlight the unique Messianic aspects of Jesus' death and 'resurrection' in a powerful symbolic way that would incorporate both the Judaic eschatological, as well as the Hellenistic symbolic traditions. The narrative gospels created the first real Christian dogmas. What is not written in the gospels (but perhaps slightly hinted at) is that the Israel of Jesus day was a melting pot of hundreds of years of exposure to all kinds of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.

In 135, Hadrian destroyed everything that was left of original Palestine Judaism. After him, Roman Christianity turned against the Jewish people, collectively blaming them of the death of their Christ.

Before Christianity was institutionalised as the official Church of the Roman empire, many different versions of Christian gospels circulated. The original inspiration of Judaic/Hellenistic symbolism had almost completely disappeared into the background, where its religious basis was thoroughly revaluated and censored and stripped of much of its mystical component in order to be able to become a main stream state religion. Despite this, a unique aspect of Judaic/Hellenistic symbolism survived the editorial censorship of Nicaea in 325AD, to became part of the Christian religion that has now existed for around 2000 years.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In 135,Hadrian destroyed everything that was left of original Palestine Judaism.After him,Roman Christianity turned against the Jewish people,collectively blaming them of the death of their Christ."

Hadrian put down the Second Jewish Revolt.Bar Kochba had successfully pushed the Romans out of Jerusalem and parts of Judaea and re-established himself as King.Hadrian had to use a huge force to defeat the Jews on this occassion and although ultimately successful it was a very costly war for the Romans.No doubt Hadrian harboured some resentment against the Jews as a result of this war and the Christians may well have found it prudent to distance themselves further from the Jews at this time.

The accusations of deicide against the Jews probably date from about this time and represent a definitive break from Jewish-Christianity,although this break was really already made after the First Jewish War(AD70).Perhaps,in the aftermath of the Second War what we see is the emergence of truly antisemitic attitudes within the Christian Church.

As for the'Hellenistic'influences on the early Church that is undoubtedly a very complex relationship.The Jews had no love for the Greeks who had committed the abomination in the Temple.The Pharisaic movement, particularly, would have upheld Hebrew custom over Greek/Hellenistic custom.To the extent that a degree of metaphysical dualism had crept into Jewish thought this probably goes back to Persian influences during and immediately following the Babylonian exile. It is not a particularly Greek sort of dualism.The same Persian influence had crept into contemporary (first century) Greek thought, divorced as it was from its classical roots by some hundreds of years.

The'Hellenisation'of Christianity obviously comes mainly through the Gentile converts and is most certainly not'Hellenism'of the classical Greek variety. This 'gnostic' dualism represented a threat to the early Church and was resisted strongly.The result of this influence is that from that time forth internal tensions within Christianity prompted a period of debate and dispute which led to the various ecumenical councils and the forging of canonical dogma that really defined the shape of Christianity.The result is neither particularly Greek nor thoroughly Hebraic.Christianity becomes quite distinctive from both its'Hellenistic'and Jewish roots.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 24 April 2008 2:46:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Relda and Waterboy,

I think the Jews were essentially expelled to Pella:

As the Jews were assigned to pray three {?} times a day at holy places; having gentile bishops allowed them to feign their identity and gain re-entry [Mack? My resources in storage/transit.].

Thiering sees the missionary enterprises towards re-establishing the House of David commencing two generations before Jesus. Also, at this time, the Herodians delegated authority to Davanic missionaries to preach to the gentiles, a lowly mission, as the Gentile-Jews were viewed second-class by the ethnically Jewish. In the background, there was a desire to not allow the Diaspora to lapse from the ways of the centre [Thiering].

Interestingly, the Herodians were ethnically closer to the Arabs than the the Jews. A Jesus-like Davanic person would be powerfully motivated to set-up his own house
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 24 April 2008 4:46:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells:

HI Peter,

George's post Monday, 7 April 2008 1:33:10 PM fits well in with my thoughts and approaches,as you know. Here, I can see Thiest maintains the position as does a secular human whom believes in a more systematic approach to an "open" knowledge system, rather than a "closed", wherein dogmatism [decree and doctrine] can overwhelm a people. Think of The Little Red Book, for istance, and being indoctrinated on how to read it and interpret it. Likewise, Mien Kemp?

Dogmatism with an elite interpreting creed towards an unquestioning populous dangerous: Highly dangerous.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 25 April 2008 1:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
Quite amusingly, through her 'pesher' technique, Thiering claims that Jesus lived on for some forty years after the crucifixion, married twice, fathered three children and helped to organise the growing Christian movement from behind the scenes. Thiering's novel approach to scriptural interpretation has been largely discounted by current scholarship. She feels compelled to perform an exegsis in finding a Christianity suitable for moderninity, devoid of mythology or the supernatural . A major critisism is that by taking what is simply a more sophisticated version of the traditional allegorical method, she can with a simple snap of her fingers make all those inconvenient traditional tenets of the Christian faith disappear.

Perhaps it is far better, in recognizing that myth is present in the Bible and seeking to interpret it, there will be a greater and lasting value than an attempt to pretend that the ancient authors of the New Testament were like sophisticated, modern intellectuals, and only used the language of myth and miracle in their 'code' in order to provide some milk for the spiritually immature.

Those theologians who are intellectually liberal enough to be able to throw off the blinders of traditional dogma are often captivated by their own modernistic form of faith so they cannot imagine an "historical Jesus" who did not look pretty much like them, parroting enlightened 19th-century ethical monotheism. Their Jesus was uninterested in theological dogma - instead he promoted "the higher righteousness" and "the infinite value of the individual soul"

Albert Schweitzer seemed a little more on the ball by showing J. C. actually turns out to be as alien to our day as he was to his own. The reinvention of Jesus becomes equally an embarrassment to the dogmatic trinitarian and the liberal religionist, a creature of his own age stamped indelibly with the assumptions of that age. As Schweitzer pointed out, once Jesus has been reimagined in this way, historical criticism is invariably replaced by novelizing, psychologizing, and rationalizing
Posted by relda, Friday, 25 April 2008 11:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,

Thanks. Another interesting post.

I do read Thiering critically. She does reference, but not as well as I would like.

There are statements and dates posited without support cited. In AI computer programming, it can happen that a field is not staticly present. For a Bank, for example, there may be no "term' field, but this can be derived from the lodgement date and maturity date. If Thiering is filling in the spaces via a Constructionist approach; she should very clearly say so.

That said, I suspect that the historical Jesus was a very different person to the personalities of the Latin and Orthodox churches. Politics, after-the-fact writings, ignorance and councils have produced accretions and distortions.

It would be hard to show Jesus was compatible with modernity, except to say he has a leader struggling among fighting inter-ethnic factions under the thumb of the super-power of the day: The Kittims, wherein Rome set-up perhaps the least suitable high-priests of the Jews, the Herods and the Annas.

It is hard to tell what is authetic, but Jesus' claimed reply to Pilate, regarding rendering "unto Caesar", for me, is interesting. It would separate him from the zealots, whom demand an immediate a Jewish church and a state.

Perhaps, Jesus was thinking more in terms of organic growth through the gentiles, rather than a head-on conflict, which he knew would futile, as latter the 60s and 130s demonstrated to the case.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 26 April 2008 1:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello George,

Greetings friend...

"Multiverse, if it exists apart from our universe, still belongs to the physical world, and manifolds “reside“ in them as little as the telescope you look through at Alpha Centauri “reside“s in that stellar constellation."

I would almost agree. However, the above might not conform with QM,wherein, if memory serves, not all of the intdeterminate state collapses into reality via observation. Thus, one might spectulate phase-space or singularity, analogous to a membrane between universes. This posit is slightly different to saying the eye sees only part of the EMS. [Come to think of it, that would mean some co-ordinates of the manifold would exist in an indeterminate realm - strange :-) and other co-ordinates in multiple determinate physical realms of different universes.] Can co-ordinates exist within infinite indetermancy? Hmm.

" I am not sure what you mean by religiosity"

I mean a faith in "a" religion rather than belief in a a god; because the data about a god is filtered by religous interpretations. Had you believed in another god [not meaning any offence, conjecture only], I would have used the same term.

-God and Maths:

Yes, I thought you would be inspired by pure maths towards belief in a god, because you are comfortable with the highly abstract and not tethered to visible. Moreover, models of non [terrestial] reality are manifest for you.

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 26 April 2008 2:02:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
Thanks again for your feedback. Let me repeat, differentiable manifolds are pure mathematical concepts used e.g. in the mathematical model that Einstein’s GR is built on; standard QM is modeled on (linear) Hilbert spaces, not manifolds. Co-ordinates are n-tuples of numbers assigned to points of a manifold allowing us, among other things, to verify the adequacy of the model for a particular physical situation. They do not “exist” anywhere except in the mathematical world of Penrose and other (mathematical) Platonists; measurable quantities within QM are something else. Superstring theory is again modeled on manifolds, the Calabi-Yau for instance, but this I am not much at home with. And, besides, neither superstring theory nor its variation, a multiverse with many branes (that our universe is supposed to be one example of, no “membranes between universes”), are physical theories as established and accepted as GR and QM. There is no point in speculating about them if one cannot grasp the very non-trivial mathematics they are based on, basing our speculations on only popular literature. GR and QM are well understood (mathematically) and verified (through experiments), nevertheless there are many unresolved philosophical questions connected with how to interpret their findings. In case of superstring theory all is even more complicated and open.

>> faith in "a" religion rather than belief in a a god; because the data about a god is filtered by religious interpretations. <<
The belief in the existence of an objective (material) world would not make much sense if one could not observe it, measure it, form theories of it in order to understand it.. The belief in God - or what you like to call the Reality that is beyond observation and description through falsifiable scientific theories and/or modeled by mathematics - does not make much sense (except as a vague concept of natural theology as with Einstein or Paul Davies), cannot be concretised, unless you adhere to a particular religious interpretation, model of that Reality. (ctd)
Posted by George, Saturday, 26 April 2008 11:11:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)
(a) You can express the same thought in many different languages;
(b) the same physical phenomena have been explained through different scientific (and pre-scientific) theories;
(c) our awareness of God can be expressed in many particular religions.

(a) In case of languages there is not “right“ or “wrong“ language in which to explain a thought;
(b) in case of scientific theories, we know from history that they all aim at the same truth (about a particular set of phenomena), but they have not all been equally truthful;
(c) in case of religions the situation is much more complicated because not only rational factors, but also history, cultural tradition, life experiences of individuals etc. are part of the criteria of truthfulness.

There are simplified or just naive ways of seeing which scientific theory is “right” and which is “wrong” (e.g. Einstein is right, Newton is wrong), and there are even more naive, stubborn, fanatical, ways of seeing which religion is right and which is wrong because of the additional factors, mentioned above, which in case or scientific theories are negligible (Thomas Kuhn notwithstanding).

So
(a) I can express simple thoughts in about six languages, no preferences about the “right one”;
(b) I partly understand a few scientific theories, have an opinion about their truthfulness often based on the authority of experts in the particular field.
(c) I adhere to one particular model of God, namely the Christian one, “filtered by (its) religious interpretations”, have an opinion about the truthfulness of this or that feature of this model, often based on the authority of the pope and other philosophers and theologians.

You see, in the Middle Ages nobody doubted the existence of God but they would have called it a delusion if you tried to tell them something about galaxies and bacteria (because they did not have telescopes and microscopes obly faith). Today nobody doubts the existence of galaxes and bacteria, but some speak abou the “God delusion” (because they do not have faith only telescopes and microscopes). I like to combine the best of both these worlds.
Posted by George, Saturday, 26 April 2008 11:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You touch on an important area, George - to which one might allude the principle of faith. Friedrich Hayek, one of the great liberal thinkers of the 20th. Century and also a self confessed agnostic wrote 'The Fatal Conceit' as his final book. In it he argued that the great failures of the modern world, i.e., socialism, communism and other attempts at social engineering, came about because of the idea we can plan human destiny in advance by the application of rationality i.e., science, technology, bureaucracy and utilitarianism etc..

An ancient expression of this comes through the Judaic concept of 'chukkim' - i.e., logic has limits and reason has boundaries. A failure to observe these limits results in tragedy. Contained here is the idea that 'laws' cannot be explained in terms of social engineering or immediate consequence. What seems unfathomable to one generation becomes lucidly self-evident to the next (as you suggest George). Here is a core aspect of life where we require faith in a wisdom greater than ours - some find meaning through an expression of the 'divine', but regardless of the term, the principle remains. A great motif is, we strive to understand what we can, but we must also have the humility to make space in our lives for that which we cannot.

Ironically, as the world appears in a rapid process of de-secularisation, in which religion, and arguments about religion have returned to centre stage, along with the underlying propensity for international conflict, an ancient paradigm returns. The basis of the Abrahamic idea is a singular faith expressing a moral concern that is universal. A man was able to plead the case for his neighbours whose destruction was all but imminent. His contemporaries at the time were able to say of him "You are a prince of God in our midst." I believe we now approach the point of a very similar but more universal recognition.
Posted by relda, Sunday, 27 April 2008 9:36:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good greetings, George,

"GR and QM are well understood (mathematically) and verified (through experiments), nevertheless there are many unresolved philosophical questions connected with how to interpret their findings." - George

Reply:

I am having a foggy-head day and may need to come back again later.

That said:

These theories are well undertood within themselves but what about their cross-intergration? Likewise, with manifolds:

The picture drawn of manifolds is as a simple metaphor like a carpet through a house with each room a universe. I don't think QM would allow this. Perhaps, more like moving from the [external] roof through a window into a room, but some transformation needs to occur to go through the window into the interior [which destroy the doomed traveller].

Kuhn (c. 1962) said that a carpenter (a researcher) would not throw his/her tool box [discipline] out because of the loss of a certain hammer for a certain nail [or words thr that effect].

With GR, QM and Manifolds, we appear to be separate displines, or, vastly different approaches, wherein some carpenters are using the imperial system and other the metric system [still metaphorically]. While the carpenter,above, might find his/her hammer: Having different systems will ensure many jobs cannot be even be started and the few that can be started will have worn screwheads and scratched surfaces.

Also, Kuhn recommended one should not have one isolated theory explaining the world, but two theories competing explaining the world.
Science requires the triology. Here, there is possibility of a [tentative] "winner", and, importantly, there is also a possibility of synthesis.
In the above frame, how can Manifold theory ignore QM? To repeat, I do understand these are separate constructions with different mathematic structures. However, this apporach raises significant ontological and epistemologic issues not just mathematics.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 27 April 2008 2:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Relda,

Have enjoyed your posts. George's too.

"A great motif is, we strive to understand what we can, but we must also have the humility to make space in our lives for that which we cannot." - Relda

Polanyi might add that the best we can do is have a conviction that we feel will be proven correct at some "indeterminant" time in the future. Owing to the tentative nature of research results that time is never reached.

"...he [Hayek] argued that the great failures of the modern world, i.e., socialism, communism and other attempts at social engineering, came about because of the idea we can plan human destiny in advance by the application of rationality i.e., science, technology, bureaucracy and utilitarianism etc.." - Relda

Is the above nineteenth cenury thought manifested in the twentieth century? Albeit, in Singapore, they still think this way.

Lee, Hilter, Engles or Marx, have tried social engineering. Stalin, I think was just a monsterous dictator. In the twentieth-first century, one hopes the benefits of science and technology manifest as a trickle-down effect, not as a governor of society.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 27 April 2008 4:22:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relda,
I think I can agree with all that you wrote. In particular, when you say that

“an ancient paradigm returns. The basis of the Abrahamic idea is a singular faith expressing a moral concern that is universal“

this for me resonates with

“the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person... They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations.”

from the Pope‘s recent address to the UN.

Oliver,
I can only repeat that one should not mix apples with oranges: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two pillars of 20th century physics. The problem with their “cross-integration”, as you put it, is the concern of new theories, superstring or what, that claim to become the “theory of everything” in physics. On the other hand, manifolds are pure mathematical concepts that can carry additional structures, and the simplest way to visualise them is as surfaces (if the dimension is 2). I do not see the need of any carpenter for that.

Thomas Kuhn coined the phrase “paradigm shift”, among other things, trying to explain (away?) the general acceptance (among scientists) of new models of the physical reality. Many people (myself included) think that he underestimated the mediating role of mathematics when passing e.g. from the Newton‘s model (of gravitation and space-time) to Einstein’s. He was probably inspired by Michael Polanyi, and he himself inspired many “social constructivists of science“ as much as he tried to distance himself from their excesses. Thomas Kuhn left us with an important historian’s insight into the workings of scientific research but that is all, just an insight which on its own should not claim to provide an understanding of what the scientist‘s “quest for truth” is all about.

Manifold theory (whatever that means) does not, cannot, “ignore” Quantum Mechanics, it is just a mathematical concept that is not part of the mathematical model underlying QM.

I think we have deviated too much from the original concern of the article to be discussed.
Posted by George, Monday, 28 April 2008 2:42:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

[1] I think I would not be aong in seeing Kuhn overemphasing ontology and underestimating epistemology.

"I think we have deviated too much from the original concern of the article to be discussed."

[2] I entered via your name or relda on the topic and picked un the discussion. I have now scrolled-up and see what you mean.

Hence,

I make the following statments:

[1] Theology should be the study of religions, plural, and, of churches in the first instance; before, one focuses on a particular belief, which is at risk of being reinforced by nurture, "indwelling" [that word again] and peer groups.

[2] Homo sapien sapien has existed for a quarter-of-million years*.

Why would a Judeo-Christian god in the OT and the NT be so different [tribal/urban] but the same [messianic]? I see a valid transition between Moses' tribe and the more cosmopolitan Greco-Roman life of Jesus. Just the same, YHVH [ a volcano and war god] and Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount are distinct. Does one look at this critically or follow a priest/minister, who has a vested bias?

[3] Why would the God of the OT and NT copy the traits of other gods? In doing being less differentiated;cultural-anthropologists will jump on?

[*The savanah was no Garden of Eden]

[4] Dogmatism [and doctrine and creed]is the product of humans, whether or not there is a god.

[5] Churches take a priori positions. A priori postions represent poor research methodology. In here, I respect Sells' right of opinion, but he frustrates me starting at step 10 [as a beginning], rather than step one
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 28 April 2008 4:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
I have never heard of Kuhn “overemphasizing ontology and underestimating epistemology”.

Theology should not be confused with comparative study of religions.

You are entitled to interpret the OT and the NT your way, but so are people who accept the authority of this or that specialist rather than relying on their own speculations. This is true not only when interpreting the bible but also when interpreting (understanding) findings in branches of science where one is not a specialist.

Dogmas and doctrines are products of humans, the same as scientific theories, which does not necessarily imply that they do not refer to something that is not just a product of pure imagination.

We all take a priori positions. Whatever “research methodology” you want to use, you have to start somewhere. The problem arises only when somebody who does not want to take these a priori positions is forced to take them.
Posted by George, Monday, 28 April 2008 7:35:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How the roots of modernity has clothed our ideals relates to our Western view and Christian tradition. It is an accepted and well-worn dogma that human beings were created free by God and intended to be free and independent. However, in early Christian, medieval and Renaissance thought, this freedom was lost when Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man" was written in 1486, a time where 'Humanism' was not anti-Christian as it has come to mean in some quarters of modern discourse - late medieval and early modern 'humanism' is just the opposite. In traditional, Platonic Christianity, humanity occupied a middle position in the hierarchy of the universe: as both physical and spiritual, humanity sat dead center between the spiritual and physical worlds. Pico unhinged humanity from that position. Humans could occupy any position whatsoever in the chain of being. A human being could become as low as an animal or, though intellect and imagination, become equivalent to God - at least in understanding. In paraphrasing God at our conception, Pico says, "... you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine."

500 years later, the International Academy of Humanism tragically loses the dignity of medieval dogma through its rationalisation of 'human cloning'(1997), "As far as the scientific enterprise can determine, Homo sapiens is a member of the animal kingdom. Human capabilities appear to differ in degree, not in kind, from those found among the higher animals. Humankind's rich repertoire of thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and hopes seems to arise from electrochemical brain processes, not from an immaterial soul that operates in ways no instrument can discover." Tragedy surely awaits.
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 9:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

"You are entitled to interpret the OT and the NT your way, but so are people who accept the authority of this or that specialist rather than relying on their own speculations. This is true not only when interpreting the bible but also when interpreting (understanding) findings in branches of science where one is not a specialist."

But who is the specialist? I would expect you would not accept sect establishing itself in the a piori belief that only mathematics before Newtown is correct; we don't listen to Dirac, Penrose, Chandrasekhar, Heinsenber, Einstein and Gell-Mann: Our authorities prohibit calculus and pure mathematics. Cosmology or QM, well exploration here is mortal sin. We just start with a priori propoositions, without induction and indwell in self-confirmation.

Clerics do learn an in-house brand of comparative religions, yet I would posit that Richard Leakey is a better "specialist" paleo-anthropolist than any cardinal or bishop in the world. So who do you go to understand the orgins of humanity. Same for, other specialists regarding history or civilization or religions plural? Leakey or a true subject specialist, or, someone whose dogma is built on the Hellenisation of Jesus' teachings a generation after a generation of oral lore, Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople.

If one student of 400 in an audience intellectly, critically questions what I have said, I go home with a warm fuzzy feeling, even though I a subject specialist. But if I were stand up midst a Christmas Mass and point out to priest that Herod was dead when Jesus was born, at best, it be seen to extremely rude, and, most clerics I have come across would attack me and maybe even expel me from the group. If we do accept the Anno Domini calendar [some don't linking it to an earlier Jewish lunar calendar], who is the specialist here the historian or priest
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 3:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-cont-

Likewise, Pilate according historians was Praefectus of Judea, hereafter, proconsular powers were imposed thirty years subsequent to Pilate's removal[c. 36]. According to historians, it wasn't until 60s when Rome clamped down on the Jews [zealots?] that Proconsular powers were available. Herein, I agree one can choose the historian's or the minister's account. It is a matter of choosing who is the best specialist and whose methodology apt?

George, I think we both look towards specialists. You, towards a closed system, perhaps? Me, towards, an open system, definitely.

Further, I am sure we can respect each's views, while in opposition.

Kuhn:

I want say much here, because we are drifting off-topic again...

If I recall, it was Lakatos who said that Kuhn was inclined towards mythical "paradigm shifts", whereas Popper was more empirical. Kuhn's academic papers in the early 1960s, seem to deal more with the theory of disciplines, distancing theory from practice and a definite field of knowledge, while demoting quantification.

Best wishes.

Relda,

Do you have a position on religious specialist [authorities] versus academic specialists [authorities]?

Cheers.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 4:48:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
Whilst respecting its premise, I'm fortunate to feel free of most authority - certainly any extraneous religious 'authority'. Currently, as a mature student, I must bind myself to academic authority - if I'm to succeed. Morally and spiritually, my attainment depends on something similar (as my posts should reveal) - any discipline should require this positon.
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 6:14:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,

In academe some degree deference remains even after a PhD. One can be isolate jumping out of a discipline. Because my interest is the commercial applications of the influence of cultural antecedents on knowlegde discover, I sometimes have issues with reviewers who are adequate speialist on a toic, say, product innovation in sixteenth China. Business studies usually does test historty much before the Great Depression, with a rare comment perhaps from Harper's in the nineteen century. In a similar, "adopting" specialists from other disciplines I have requires explanation time, being a bit of a nuisance in a 20-30 session. It can be frustrating and rewarding; herein, after cutting pieces out my delivery to fit the slot, in the of a talk to essentially business academics, a Professor of History, stood, applauded, and cried, "At last! At last!

George,

"The historiographical tradition Kuhn attempts to assimilate in his theory of scientific revolutions is thus by no means unitary and uncontentious. On the contrary, it is characterized by a deep philosophical opposition between a mathematical idealist tendency taking its inspiration from Kant and a more realistic, substantialistic tendency taking its inspiration - via the thought of Meyerson - from a mixture of Platonic, Cartesian, and Hegelian ideas. The former tendency, following Kant, renounces the ambition of describing an ontological realm of substantial things subsisting behind the empirical phenomena in favor of a rigorous mathematical description of the lawlike relations among the phenomena themselves. It differs from Kant, however, in recognizing that no particular mathematical structures (such as those of Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics) are necessarily instantiated in the phenomena, and, accordingly, it portrays the rationality and universality of scientific progress as a historical evolution marked by a continuous unfolding and generalization of the powers of mathematical thought."

"The latter tendency, by contrast, maintains precisely an ontology of substantial things, and, accordingly, it emphatically rejects the attempt to reduce the task of science to the formulation of precise mathematical laws." Citation : Title: Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Nickles (2003), p.33 - biographical editor. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 4:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Dogma, Etymology: [a 1600 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. VIII. ii. §13 [tr. D. Stapleton] Power to proclaim, to defend, and..to preserve from violation dogmata, very articles of religion themselves.] - OED

Did not Luther and the Protestant movement breach the dogma of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Do you believe the Pope is infallible? What do think about Christians for various denominations taking the Holy Eucharist in each other's churches?
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 8:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
I tried to be as brief as I thought I should because it seemed to me that we were just conducting parallel monologues. Your previous post touched upon, (speculative) exegesis and (Christian) theology, a field which has its own specialists, not e.g simply. historians, anthropologists or philosophers. It is true that they can disagree between themselves, often simply because of their different a priori cultural or philosophical backgrounds, denominational domiciles etc., a situation you do not have to that extent with specialist scientists although they can disagree as well.

Normally you accept the expertise of your doctor but in serious cases you can ask for a second opinion, and if they disagree it is up to you whose advise you follow. Where religion is involved you also have to decide whose advise you follow, (and if you go for a charlatan you carry the consequences, the same as in case of medical advise). This is why I said you were entitled to your own interpretations. Also, there is no such clear-cut criterion of who is a real specialist in the field of exegesis (perhaps similar to other humanities fields) as in the case of (natural) science or mathematics.

I am afraid this is all I can say because I do not consider myself a specialist in exegesis. Neither have I the right to call your questions naive for the same reasons. Even in mathematics, where I should have some knowledge, there are questions I would not be able to answer except by suggesting you either accept the authority of some mathematician, or go and study (undergraduate or postgraduate) mathematics from scratch.

And I certainly do not want to patronise you if you consider yourself knowledgeable in these things better than I, although to me you rather seem to be a seeker, if I may thus interpret your reference to an “open system“.

In a certain sense I see myself a seeker as well, although I might have found things you are still looking for, and vice versa. (ctd)
Posted by George, Thursday, 1 May 2008 12:49:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd) “It is understandable that a man may seek but not find; it is understandable that a man may deny; but it is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe.” These are the words of Cardinal Wojtyla (later John Paul II) spoken in 1978, and although he was referring to the Polish political authorities of that time, I think also in our times it is “not understandable“ if a belief system - be it based on theist or atheist premises - is imposed on those adhering to a different system, or those who are just unable to understand (you might say indwell) the rational, cultural, psychological etc determinants that are behind the presuppositions of that system. If it was a priest or preacher who imposed his “system” on you, I can understand your bitterness. Perhaps part of the reason I adhere to my “system” was the imposition of the kind Wojtyla talked about.

Thank you for the interesting quote re Thomas Kuhn, although there indeed must be very few, if any at all, who “attempt to reduce the task of science to the formulation of precise mathematical law.” It was Thomas Kuhn - not theoretical physicists and cosmologists who could not proceed in their research without very “heavy” mathematics - who was generalising to all of science his own observations.
Posted by George, Thursday, 1 May 2008 12:53:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George;
The following might interest you. Use JSTOR via your university’s databases, as most DBs only go back to 2002. Quite a multi-disciplinary Who’s Who.
ISIS: Vol. 52, No. 2, Jun., 1961, article contents:
1.
o Front Matter
2.
o The Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences (pp. 133-134)
o Harry Woolf
3.
o Some Aspects of Quantification in Science (pp. 135-142)
o S. S. Wilks
4.
o Quantification in Medieval Physics (pp. 143-160)
o A. C. Crombie
5.
o The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science (pp. 161-193)
o Thomas S. Kuhn
6.
o The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science (pp. 161-193)
o Thomas S. Kuhn
7.
o Quantification in ChemistryQuantification in Chemistry (pp. 194-214)
o Henry Guerlac
8.
o The History of Quantification in Medical Science (pp. 215-237)
o Richard H. Shryock
9.
o The Beginning and Growth of Measurement in Psychology (pp. 238-257)
o Edwin G. Boring
10.
o On the Progress of Quantification in Economics (pp. 258-276)
o Joseph J. Spengler
11.
o Notes on the History of Quantification in Sociology--Trends, Sources and Problems (pp. 277-333)
o Paul F. Lazarsfeld
12.
o Quantification in Biology (pp. 334-352)
o R. W. Gerard
13. Back Matter (pp. 353-354
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 2 May 2008 1:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

I have wondered why you post and rarely debate the issues you raise? I wonder if you have been posting your sermons. If so, and only if, you should realize the content is the property of the Anglican Church. I have been in the situation where I have had to ask for permission -which must be acknowledged- from OTEN/SBS to use a table I reproduced for a journal. I was the author of the table and on the editorial board of the magazine.

Regarding dogma, I have read that the 39 articles of the Anglican Church were originally 42, herein, there was much infighting among the ministers of the sixteen century. Finally, Elizabeth I (1559?) chose the thirty-nine:

But on what authority? Defender of the Faith? No. That title was given to Henry VIII by The Pope for Henry’s thesis.

Stretching matters, even if one accepts the DoF title belongs to the House of Tutor Dynasty; Elizabeth II belongs to House of Windsor of of the Saxe-Coburg und Gotha & Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld Dynasties.

Moreover, here, with the DoF doggma, there are also serious issues of separation of church and state. What is the basis of the dogma and why is the particalar human, Elizabeth Windsor, the temporal head of a church? Certainly not a god's choice? Or do you believe in the Divine Right of Kings too?

Is it true that a Britian Monarch must swear a Coronation that they do not believe in transsubstantiation? First, the Bible (Mark?) states one should not swear oaths, and, secoundly, the Dogma cuts across hundreds of years of Christian dogma. Surely you are not saying that the illigimate Virgin Queen of England [Mary had better title] can change the dogma of Holy Roman Church, yet Oliver can't change Anglican dogma, in theory? Power separates Elizabeth I and I, not humanity.

Lastly, does the Anglican church still belives in "original sin". That is one powerfully dangerous doctrine. Were I a theist, I would look poorly upon a god whom conceived it. Down boy, bad god! bad god!
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 2 May 2008 1:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George

Differences in Biblical interpreation arise for many reasons and cannot really be compared to scientific disputes. Obviously historical method and some of the tools of literery criticism are used to ascertain, to the extent that it is possible, what the author intended in his/her own context.

We, however, read the Bible for particular reasons that are not usually directly addressed by the authors. We are, after all, separated from the authors by 2000 years in time and a cultural gap that might as well put us on opposite sides of the galaxy. Our reason for reading the Bible will largley determine the hermeneutic framework we adopt so that we find varying feminist interpretations of Firenza, Reuther, Trible on the one hand and the more conservative interpretations of Rahner, Kung, Ratzinger and so on on the other. Gods word is not singular in meaning and indeed we should read it looking for meaning rather than looking for its meaning. In a scientific dispute one or both parties inevitably must be 'wrong'.
This is not the case with Biblical interpretation. You and I might come to quite different conclusions wrt what the Bible 'means'. Hermeneutical framework is every bit as important as exegetical method in arriving at a mature understanding of God's Word.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 3 May 2008 12:56:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

Whose/Which God and on what basis do you choose? Did Jesus die for the Antecs of the 1300 BC? What is the relation between the Rites of the Jews and animism in in Shogun Japan?

For me Christianity, seems too undifferentiated from the religions of Hebrews, Eygpt, Roman and Greece, and too provincial for centuries.

Cheers.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 3 May 2008 2:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,
I completely agree, that is why i mentioned “different a priori cultural or philosophical backgrounds, denominational domiciles etc., a situation you do not have to that extent with specialist scientists“.

I have to admit I could never fully understand Gadamer’s hermeneutic approach to philosophy but I can see what you mean by the “hermeneutic framework”, which is more or less an exposition of what i tried to say briefly in the above quote. In addition to this personal dimension (Polanyi’s or Oliver’s indwelling) I think that exegesis even “hostile” interpretation, should not be based on just a superficial juxtaposition of events, or parts of the narrative, taken literally. So I think exegesis too has its scholars and dilettantes. And yes, it is much harder to give reasons of why a layman should trust Rahner or Ratzinger more than Reuther or even Thiering (or vice versa), than to give reasons for trusting this person more than that one, both claiming to be specialists in e.g. physics (where often understanding of the mathematics involved can serve as an arbiter).
Posted by George, Sunday, 4 May 2008 1:23:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy,

"Gods word is not singular in meaning and indeed we should read it looking for meaning rather than looking for its meaning. In a scientific dispute one or both parties inevitably must be 'wrong'.
This is not the case with Biblical interpretation." - W

Science has applied referential frames since Gallileo. Newtownian mechanics works just fine on Earth; but in relativity not to two observers at near c. It is strength not a weakness. Science: wrong sometimes, needs synthesis. Sometimes science/theory is best, when shown incomplete, but put of a better, bigger theory [Einstein]: obe has provided the shoulders for a better theory or discovery.

I've been reading Richard Leakey lately, he will say thing like there are gaps, or, that in PreCambrian period we can only only find fossiles of soft bodied creators because elsewhere the rocks have would have cushed the fossil. In harder sediments we might "droppings" which will allow to "deduce" the digestive of a soft creatures.

In church the prest will not say this Gospel says, "abc", we need to be careful however as it is contradicted by Plutarchs, "Twelve Casears" or it was very unusual for a Roman prefer [not proconsul] to to crucify a person [three persons] on the Jewish Passover.

George,

Hope you are able to access HSS/ISIS articles. Very intersting.

I see indwelling in two ways. One the way I have arguing, as a reinforcer where the priest is the "only" authority. Secondly, recognising culrural differences. My wife and I know a cleric who has had direcr conversations with the late JPII. When the Pope was in Sydney I recall two aspects of this "one degree of separation". Bonnie the St Maty's mascot dog took a liking to the Pope Mobile :-). Two, that John Paul said that in Italy the congregation would be very uncomfortable about having children sitting inside the alter-rail, as some Australia priests allow, so the children see what is happening.

The point with religious indwelling as I borrow is that it a performance we live-in uncritically accepting authory, rather examine the facts. No null hypotheses.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 4 May 2008 11:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
>> the priest is the "only" authority << for those who need this reassurance. Like the teacher of any subject is the only authority for a child, or for anybody whose understanding of the subject is at a similar level. However, if the teacher is successful the child will eventually grow up into a person who will only occasionally need the authority, or rather advice, of a professional. Unfortunately, today there are many "unsuccessful" teachers, especially in RE, who did not catch up with the changes the West went through in the last century.

>> The point with religious indwelling as I borrow is that it a performance we live-in uncritically accepting authory, rather examine the facts. No null hypotheses. <<

Well, you are right I should not have mentioned you together with Polanyi when referring to 'indwelling' as his understanding of the word seems to be quite different from yours. "By indwelling, Polanyi didn't mean learning through empathy or by looking at things; instead, tacit knowing meant dwelling in things. Polanyi explained that just as one cannot understand fully a poem by reading about poetic structure, neither can individuals employ empirical knowledge to understand reality." (I forgot where I had the quote from). And I would add that you can discuss the frequencies of different sounds as measured by some electro-acoustic apparatus with a deaf person, but you cannot expect him/her to understand what you mean by saying that this or that music is good.

No null hypotheses, as I understand it, means no presuppositions. I cannot understand how you can proceed rationally building your system if you do not start anywhere with some axioms (or "givens" as somebody here called them), e.g about what for you will count as "evidence".

We apparently differ also in what we find important about JPII.
Posted by George, Sunday, 4 May 2008 4:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello George,

My academic interest in Polanyi is more to do with implicit & explicit knowledge being said to be co-exist & co-efficient, a rebuttal of Nonaka & Takeuchi on the epistemology said to form the basis their model of Knowledge Managment. Even though I have read forty years of his works, I did not pick-up on the Polanyi-Popper connection. My focus was othewise.

My interest is more to do with implicit & explicit knowledge being said to be co-exist & co-efficient, as a rebuttal of Nonaka & Takeuchi on the epistemology claimed to form the basis their model of Knowledge Managment. If implicit & explicit co-efficient, knoweledge is a(b), herein, one would find it difficult to build matrices, now popular in many KM books sold to business practitioners. Personal knowledge presents points, methinks - inplicit(explicit), not two axes?

I do hope that mature Theists look beyond their priests. A position I suspect Sells might challenge, he having the dogma of the church unquestionable, which I see unstainable in given today's knowledge in science, anthropology and history. When these good folk do and retain their beliefs, I feel, said conviction, is an honest discovery [even through I personally would disagree with conclusion.]
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 4 May 2008 5:27:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George

Gadamer's hermeneutics emphasises situatedness and practicality over method and 'determinacy'. For Gadamer understanding is the goal of dialogue and as such is perhaps occasional rather than universal.

"cultural or philosophical backgrounds, denominational domiciles etc" does not really equate to 'situatedness' which is the cornerstone of hermeneutics. 'Situatedness' is the domain of existence of parties in dialogue and understanding is that which is 'unconcealed' through the process of dialogue. We are no longer talking about an abstract truth that exists outside the universe of our existence but rather understanding the structure of being from within.

The a priori 'assumptions' of Gadamerian dialogue are not the same thing as the set of agreed axioms of geometry from which we can expand knowledge by manipulations using a standard well understood methodology (such as algebra in mathematics). Gadamer argues that the assumption that such a methodolgy exists in hermeneutics is misguided. This would have profound implications for ecclesiology and dogmatics.

Since dialogue is a cornerstone of Gadamerian hermeneutics and requires requires the openness of the participating parties to respond to that which is 'unconcealed' through the process then it hardly makes sense to have one side of the dialogue locked into a 'situatedness' that is immutable. A 'fixed tradition' cannot act as a party to such a dialogue and is therefore, virtually by definition, not a potential partner in any meaningful dialogical process ie cannot contribute to new understanding or truth.

If understanding is tightly bound to 'situatedness' then truth, to the extent that we can know it, is similarly bound and one must draw the conclusion truth is bound to context and that it is a misguided enterprise that seeks 'The Truth'
Posted by waterboy, Sunday, 4 May 2008 8:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,
thank you for your interesting “Gadamer in a nutshell“ exposition. One can learn a lot from such philosophical perspectives. What I have problems with is the epistemological relativism that it seems to imply (here I might have misunderstood Gadamer or you). I do not think that misguided is an “enterprise that seeks the Truth“: I think misguided is the one who thinks he/she has found that Truth, and/or wants to impose his/her version of it on others.

>> We are no longer talking about an abstract truth that exists outside the universe of our existence but rather understanding the structure of being from within. <<

I can understand that. However, the fact that “we“ are no longer talking about “truth that exists outside the universe of our existence“ does not imply that others cannot believe in the existence of such Truth, even if unattainable from within our perspective(s). So I do not think this Truth is “bound to context“, although our understanding of it certainly is. An ideal is an ideal even if it is beyond reach. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but not Truth, only our understanding of It is (in the eye of the philosopher).

Even within science the absolute truth about the universe is probably beyond our reach, although scientists - atheist or not - make a tacit assumption about its existence, and strive for it. That was made very clear during the “science wars“ dispute in the nineties.
Posted by George, Monday, 5 May 2008 2:44:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

On Polanyi:

"Because participation at the highest level required for an understanding of men's works and ways is virtually the same as what is required of a person in the performance or appreciation of these works and ways, it becomes necessary for an inquirer to understand what goes on in the actual performance of these works. His participation is therefore not with a part of his being—with the various clues he dwells in personally in making his integrations—but, as we shall soon see, with the whole of his person in an actual performance. He must, as Polanyi said, be 'carried away' by a poem, a painting, or a religion" ...

Let us now turn to Polanyi's understanding of religion and the nature of our acceptance of it. Religion, for Polanyi, is also a work of the imagination. It is a sprawling work, since it incorporates myths, rites, and ceremonies, such as we have been discussing, and also doctrines and worship. As a transnatural integration, it is, for Polanyi, an integration of incompatibles. Moreover, it is detached from our ordinary life by a "frame"—as are works of art. In rites, as we have seen, it is myth that gives them an import. It is not only what is said in the myth that detaches it from the practical affairs of our lives, but, according to Polanyi, it is even more the rites and ceremonies, recreating its expressed actions which detaches the myth from our ordinary lives."

- Michael Polanyi: A Critical Exposition by Harry Prosch; State University of New York Press, 1986

Because Poplanyi is very hard to read to understand for many a reader. I think Prosch helped with "Personal Knowledge", The University of Chicago Press ( Chicago: 1958), so his ideas became more comprehensible.

[My HK books are in Brisbane. Hope, I have them next week: 110 boxes!]

Cheers.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 5 May 2008 5:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Surely, you have something to say on the notion of rites being a transnational integration detached from normal: i.e., is a [unquestionable] sermon: To paraphase Prosch's insightful work on Polanyi.

I am not take hit-and-run digs. I have referenced many great thinkers in science, civilization studies, cultural-anthopology and science across several posts; yet, you stay silent. This is a Forum, you know.

Greetings and kind wishes.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 5 May 2008 5:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George

If an ideal is a truth that is outside the universe of our experience then surely it both unknowable and inconsequential. Relativism may be anathema to the Church but it must be embraced in order to live in the world as we know it. We would certainly be justified in 'imposing' an absolute and universal Truth on anyone since by definition it is a Truth to them whether they know it or not and this is why I have deep misgivings about the enterprise of 'seeking The Truth'.

The fact that understanding takes place within history and depends on continuities through and across history ensures that there are commonalities in understanding that deliver near-universal truths (at least within the universe of the totality of human experience). We can, for example, read the Bible and recognise the characters as human with emotions, motivations and thought processes that are familiar. We can understand reasonably confidently the author's intended meanings and draw conclusions, with varying degrees of confidence, about the circumstances in which many texts were written.

Gadamer does not reduce understanding to total subjectivity. An antecedent understanding grounded in history is fundamental to hermeneutics as the 'unconcealment' of new (or perhaps revised) truth. Truth is extended/developed iteratively both individually and in the form of tradition (at least this is true for a 'living' tradition). It is therefore, perhaps, something of a misrepresentation of hermeneutical philosophy to characterise it as inherently relativist. Relativism poses no particular problem to me but Gadamer did defend his hermeneutics against the 'charge' of relativism.

What would you take to be the alternative to relativism, you do not strike as a moral absolutist. Sells seems somewhere between a moral absolutist and consequentialist. I suppose I am an absolute relativist. You might say that is an antilogy but I prefer to think of it as an oxymoron
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 5 May 2008 8:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
thanks for the feedback, it made me reread the part about “religious doubt” in Polanyi’s ‘Personal Knowledge’. There is nothing I can disagree here with you. Remember, I only “raised my brows” when you referred to religious indwelling as “uncritically accepting authority, rather than examine the facts“. Besides, “there is a weakness in Polanyi’s work on religion which reflects his limited experience of religious practices and theological traditions. Nevertheless, his insight that religious knowledge is rooted in the practices of religious worship is one from which theology has much to learn.“ (see http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD32-2/TAD32-2-fnl-pg25-37-pdf.pdf, which also deals with Harry Prosch’s reading of Polanyi).

So it is certainly true that Polanyi’s views, as illuminating as they are, are not those of an insider (indweller?).

waterboy,
thank you for further widening my perspective, though I fail to see where it conflicts with my belief in the existence of Something “that is outside the universe“ of our SENSUOUS (direct or indirect through instruments) experience. I strongly believe in the existence of a material world that is outside my mental world, and I also believe (though not as strongly) in the existence of a (Platonic) world of mathematics that is outside my mental world. There are very few solipsists but there are many mathematicians who do not believe in the existence of a world of mathematics, except for what is in our mind, nevertheless they can coexist and cooperate with mathematicians who do believe in it.

I agree with Feuerbach that “man created God to his image” but only as a complement to “God created man to His image”. Something like creating mathematics is complementary to discovering mathematics; “doing mathematics” is actually both of these at the same time. In this sense I can see your perspective as complementary to a more classical “transcendental theology“.

Oliver, waterboy,
I have to apologise for not being able to continue in this for me most illuminating discussion: in a couple of hours my daughter, whom I have not seen for over two years, is arriving from Australia, so she must have all my attention.
Posted by George, Monday, 5 May 2008 10:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy