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).

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.

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.

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.]

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'

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.