hi nerds
i'm glad you're smart. because i have a favor to ask.
i just joined a book club of people way ridiculously smarter than me. people who are interviewed on npr and people who speak to thousands of others on a weekly basis. i am neither interviewed on npr nor asked to speak to large audiences. but i did get an A in Non-Verbal Communication at the UW. maybe that's why i get to come.
regardless, we're reading this book, truth to tell, by lesslie newbigin. i have to read it in the presence of my fiance, who is also ridiculously smarter than me, so that i can ask him to explain what the issue fought out between Arius and Athanasius was and why it was so important to the formulation of the Trinitarian formula (say what?).
it's a tough book. it forces me to examine some of my own bad theology (see actual conversation between me and jon below):
discussing descartes's philosophy:
me: okay, so on the basis of knowing nothing, descartes begins with his own existence ... and comes up with, "i think, therefore i am."
jon: right.
me: so his critics then question whether descartes exists, which leads them to wonder whether god exists.
jon: mmhmm.
me: "i think, therefore i am." i don't like it. but "i feel, therefore i am, " THAT philosophy i could get on board with ...
jon: wow, you really are ....
me: totally illogical, i know.
jon: i didn't say it.
so i like it. i like being challenged to really ponder, consider, evaluate. and here's where my favor comes in. i need you to ponder, consider, and evaluate, too. i need your feedback. i picked a few of the most interesting (to me) lines from the book. would you just pick one or two or all and tell me what questions it makes you ask, or what kind of response you have to it? it would help me out A LOT.
1. to abandon hope of speaking truthfully about reality is to abandon the adventure of life.
2. History is always being rewritten - not only because new evidence turns up, but also because old evidence is seen in the light of new experience. The historian E.H. Carr defined history as a continuous conversation between the present and the past. It is only in this way that history becomes part of an intelligible and purposeful life.
3. Einstein says, "what you call a fact depends on the theory you bring to it."
4. In Gibson's tart words, all religions were to the people equally true, to the philosophers equally false, and to the government equally useful.
5. the past 300 years have been the most brilliant in human history, but their brilliance was created by the combustion of a thousand years' deposit of the Christian tradition in the oxygen of Greek rationalism. Now, says Polanyi, the fuel is burned up. We shall not get fresh light by pumping in more oxygen.
6. Revelation is not allowed as a subject for classroom teaching. It is barred from public doctrine. Human origins are a subject for classroom teaching. They are part of public truth. Human destiny is not. It is a matter of private opinion. And if there is no public doctrine about human destiny, there can be no basis for rational discussion in the public forum about what are and what are not proper ends of human endeavor. And when there are no rational grounds for these decisions, the way is open for the sort of mindless fanaticism about single moral issues which is such a feature of our time. Bacon's vision of unlimited power, and the marvelous achievements of technology which have seemed to authenticate that vision, combined with a purely this-worldly scenario for the human story, and in the absence of any public doctrine about human destiny, creates a situation in which there are no checks on the ruthless pursuit of particular ends, moral or otherwise.
Thanks for your feedback.
Labels: books, philosophy
posted by Mary @ 9:05 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
“To abandon hope of speaking truthfully about reality is to abandon the adventure of life.”
I really liked this quote as soon as I read it – then I looked up the book you are reading and the author and realized she is probably talking about “the Truth” – the Bible? Christ? The Gospel? Then I couldn’t help thinking about it in a completely different way.
I suppose many Christians would consider me a person who has abandoned “the hope of speaking truthfully about reality,” because I am no longer involved in any sort of activity that “speaks the truth,” nor do I concern myself with speaking the so-called Christian Truth, nor do I worry about if it is or is not, in fact, Truth. Because frankly, it’s impossible for me to deal with the idea of a specific (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever) faith-based view of the world without getting bogged down in what I would call the salvation factor and also, morality. The salvation factor is really the biggest deal for me; I mean, I can deal with a lot of messed up teachers who mar and mislead people into cultish or overly fundamentalist (or overly liberal) views of scripture, God, Christ, etc.
But the idea of God judging us based on our morality raises a lot of flags in my mind. Those who believe accepting/knowing/following Christ is the solution for this problem are inherently excluding A LOT of people from their picture of the world – the majority of the world’s population who know little or nothing of the Bible/Christ, even perhaps the concept of one God. And that basically leads me to the salvation problem. What I can’t deal with is what exactly the Gospel is if it’s not salvation. If it’s not salvation (or, we don’t require salvation) then there are a LOT of issues with the church/the message of the Bible/Paul’s letters, even things Jesus said. And I’m not sure when the author writes about the truth of reality she is actually talking about being a good person and other non-expressly Christian truths.
So, the author is perhaps suggesting that people (like me) who abandon the need/desire/faith to speak truthfully about reality (the Gospel, Christ, etc) have abandoned the adventure of life. Well, now I am forced to vehemently disagree. Without concerning myself constantly with finding some sort of absolute Truth, I am free to explore the world, to explore thoughts and ideas and different kinds of truth. I am free to meet and interact with people without thinking of them in terms of the salvation factor. I no longer try to box the things I think and feel about the world in the confines of what I am as a Christian. I realize most people don’t preoccupy and obsess about the salvation factor, but after being in a missionary situation, I found it nearly impossible to not consider it all the time. But I always felt awkward and strange trying to share and at times push my beliefs on other people, especially on those who had no concept of what it was like to suddenly live by a very foreign set of Christian guidelines.
I always had doubts, and pretended they didn’t exist. I tried to avoid thinking about the salvation factor all the time, but the truth was, I was there to be one tiny part of remedying it, and I never thought my words were an effective remedy. In many ways, we took advantage of the fact that we were Americans, and we were supposed to sift through friends and acquaintances to find those people most likely to share this Truth with others. I realize this is extreme, but if you are a person who believes that salvation only comes through Christ and the Gospel, you sort of have to behave this way. What other options are you if you see everyone around you as someone potentially lost?
So what if the truth is something else? What if the truth doesn’t have to be about salvation, but something else? Well, many things the church does are noble and good, amazing really, life-changing, but what is inherently the truth in that? Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Is that the truth? I could get behind that, I could. But most Christians don’t really believe, I don’t think, deep down, that that’s “the” truth.
I’m pretty well lost now. That’s about all the theology I can take for one day, and I’m sure it was the opposite of what you were looking for in terms of thoughts and questions on these quotes.
But hey, still sounds like a good book club.
Ok Mary, I’m going to give this a try but with a disclaimer. I’m not a member of the “ridiculously smart” group of people, I have a background in philosophy that can only be quite generously described as limited, I find it tough to respond well when I don’t entirely know the context, I process verbally so what’s being written is just of this moment, and well, logic and I aren’t always close friends. For example—when you said you could get on board with “I feel, therefore I am” I was right behind you. That makes sense to me. So, here goes…
1. I realized after reading this a few times that I actually read “truthfully” as “honestly.” I imagined that the author was calling for people not to hide behind ideals or dogmas but to step back and really look at reality and then to speak honestly, openly, and truthfully about it, in all its complexities, in an effort to work something out (not sure what…context questions here). I took it to mean that the adventure in life is found in the examination, consideration, and honest discussion about things that are often beyond our minds to fully understand.
2. History as a conversation between present and past is an intriguing way to describe it. I think I once heard someone say that history is not static, though we sometimes treat it as such. The facts, like when the Declaration of Independence was signed, remain constant. But over time people have viewed historical events through the lens of the present. We struggle to make sense of things past because we actually see the world differently than people did then and so we don’t always agree with their decisions or views. And yet it is because we see the world differently that we can make some sense of those same events that may have not been so clear to contemporaries. I’m not exactly sure what I mean here, but I love this idea. I guess I think of it like events from my own childhood. As I get distance from them I see and understand them in different ways, but even those understandings are shaped by what happened to me in the intervening years and can change as I have more experiences.
3. This is totally fascinating to me, but I’d need an example or five before I could feel comfortable responding to it in any way. My initial instinct is to agree but I cannot give you the first reason why.
4. Ditto here.
5. So is this Polanyi saying we need to inject more fuel, i.e. Christian tradition, into society? What does that mean? I see that as being something certain populations would take to mean we need prayer in schools and all the superficial behaviors that will inevitably make us better. Like how saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school makes my students more patriotic and better Americans. (please note dripping sarcasm) It could mean more voices of Christian perspective… but whose? Which? Isn’t there still danger in that? And how did Christian tradition plus Greek rationalism equal brilliance? (Perhaps that limited philosophy background is rearing its head here)
6. My first response—it’s not as if there’s widespread agreement on human origins. The public truth on that seems to be quite split and impacts views of everything else held by members of both camps. But perhaps the author’s point is simply that human origins are at least discussed, while human destiny is not. I do think human destiny is discussed in general or obscured ways, what is “good” or “acceptable” and what’s “being a decent human being” but I’m not sure it’s widely discussed in any kind of depth.
So that’s my response, written while trying to warm up from the hockey game I just attended. It may or may not make sense or be very “smart.” But I hope it helps. I bet you’re going to be part of some interesting conversations that I hope you’ll write about.
I warn you, what follows could be a brilliant treatise or a huge load of BS…
1. Ah, the ultimate exposure of the truth of everything! How I long for it with all my being! Exactly what happened at the birth of earth? Is there really a whole in the ozone layer and what caused it? Who really killed Kennedy? This is a remark, I think, about the inherent nature of life as an unfolding mystery. We want to get to the bottom of things, to uncover the truth, but the continual process of this is what keeps life interesting for those of us who ponder the question of the universe on a regular basis, don’t you think?
2. History is one of my favorite things not only because I get caught up in the delights of times so unlike my own, but also because I like to see how it repeats itself. When you study history intensely, I think you begin understand the nature of humanity. You see the present as part of an elaborate story that is playing itself out, but has a set of continuous themes that keep occurring and recurring. Think of your short life…you recall things that happened to you when you were younger, but now you look on those things with more clarity and understanding because of the experiences you’ve had and knowledge you’ve gained. You aren’t necessarily better or worse off, you’re just older and wiser.
3. Who the hell understands anything Einstein said? I suppose he’s talking about the methodology you use to reach a conclusion that could purportedly be called a fact. And that is a universal truth – your worldview, perception, background, etc. all determines your derivation of the truth or of facts.
4. Gibson says the people are naïve, the philosophers are skeptics and the governments are devious, using religion to secure their own ends – nothing changes.
5. I think this is a very true, and for many scary, truth. The age of “Christian” rule of the thinking world is over. In the age of empire and industry which has preceded this age, the world leaders were informed by pseudo-Christian scientific-methodological thinking that is described in the quote. Though I’d like to keep Christianity apolitical and though I wish Christianity had nothing to do with the success of nations, I can’t separate the ruling class from the faith that motivated them, no matter how far from a true Christian spirituality they might’ve wandered. The rub is that no one is buying it anymore, this packaged religion. The results of generations of pragmatism and rationalism is complete rejection of both and a hunger for a suitable alternative worldview. I love it!
6. Basically, in the absence of absolute truth anything goes. If you live in a country/culture which creates is own form of religious morality based narrowly or loosely in an existing religion then the actions of that country/culture will almost always be viewed as righteous by adherents to the chosen religious morality, be it Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or Christianity.
I was gonna comment - but I'm not sure that I'm brave enough - or smart enough now!! comments made by thoughtful smart people... maybe another day I'll try.
Ciao, Beth
ps - Laura - I reckon you might like "irresistable revolution" if you've not read it already. You might not though.. I've just spent five days or more made ill by thinking about what it means to love in this world and who I am. I got food poisening - but the questions in my mind weren't helping. Yeah and I was reading that book in the midst of it! So - reccomendation comes with a warning!! :) I've stopped reading it for a while. Anyway - some of these big issues seem too much to wrestle with. I have a lot of unaswered questions maybe... or I have battles to fight within me, my hope at times is a faint one - and there I rest in grace alone. I don't know a safer place. I just have to go through the tough times though and find out who I am, and personally I've seen myself as a lost spirited little lamb alone in the dark and the rain that found courage enough to find comfort in the arms of the good shepherd. That's how I saw myself last night at least, and the world around me - as good as it can be - well it didn't mind me being alone, nor in the rain, and I loved more how strong and good the sheperd was because of that. Anyway... I'm baffling on in my own way of not abandoning hope or whatever... bye!
Hi there,
Just want to say sorry - to Laura. Here I am recommending a book that you've probably read and 100 other more books than I have! And I don't know you. You seem really cool, and yeah - its a place for a friend to recommend anything! So anyway - all the best to you and sorry! I didn't mean to be all advisory!
I wrote that comment sitting on my floor in the dark - cause the electricity went off - here in Albania. These days have been a certain kind of crisis for me - more to do with self than God - but still it humbles a person to go through such times! But for its own blog these tales wait!
My thoughts on -
“To abandon hope of speaking truthfully about reality is to abandon the adventure of life.”
To "abandon hope of speaking truthfully" - so not abandoning speaking truthfully - but just the hope of it... abandoning the hope of speaking truthfully about reality...
Wow - to speak truthfully about reality is quite a task! Not a finished work by any means - for theologian, journalist, philosopher, poet, child, neighbour, Mum or Dad, anyone! I suppose lots of people would take an interest in "reality" and a lot in speaking truthfully about it, but not everyone. I think that if a person has a quest for truth - they may embark on an adventure of life, or an adventure of faith maybe - or even a deep sorrow like never expected, or a deeper joy than was ever imagined. I think the quote itself is selective in its words.
To lose the hope of speaking truthfully about reality is to abandon the adventure of life. Well, to abandon hope of speaking truthfully about reality is to give up on either speaking, or telling lies instead of truths, or else its giving up on the hope of the possibility of truth being spoken about reality - I guess its saying that if you think there is no truth about life and reality, then there is no hope of life. Its a strange concept - but, I guess to me its simply saying if there is no truth, life is lived with a loss.
I could say personally that I long to speak about realities - the realities of this world - and what I find in these days is that the reality of this world can prove quite bleak, and if thats the only conclusion I find - well I know I am sorely missing out on the amazing side of things. Also I know that the bleak side cannot be ignored or hiden and the truth of it cannot be abandoned, but if my hope of truth lies only there - man because of the hopelessness of that, I would probably abandon hope of speaking truth and I would find some corner of the earth by the sea and live in a cottage and take photos and try my hardest to be happy. It would be an adventure enough in itself - but a smaller one.
If there is hope of truth being spoken my life adventure is made vaster by far - for truth would not just show itself by what the world shows or understands or just I, but it might also show solutions or the best of life in the midst of the heartache and darkness. Truth of reality would be bigger than any one understnading of reality - it would be more. And I guess truth of reality always is surprising and allows for the adventure of life. There is hope in that thought - hope that the reality of truth or the truth of reality equates with life rather than death - left to personal conclusions - subjective rather than concrete truth we may conlude that reality actually equates in death... or life... or something else.
Yep - theres a lot more to the comment than I realised!! And I'm sure more to be said - however after writing all this - I took a look at Jenns comment for quote 1 and I think she figured it out and summed it up quite simpley and clearly! Yikes - what tangents I take!
Goodness - you are doing well to be challenged in your thinking Mary! Bless you!
Beth x
Hi Beth, and others.
I'm not sure why you apologized for your original comment, I didn't think it was advisory or pushy or anything.
Anyway, I haven't read the book, and certainly haven't read hundreds of others on theology, for that matter. I will look it up.
Hi Laura,
Thats really cool, thanks.
Beth x
Hello Mary,
First, congratulations from Rachel and I on your engagement! It's very exciting and the next time we're in Madison we will have to make these congratulations in person!
I am also very intrigued by your quotes. I'm assuming that Polanyi is Karl Polanyi of Christian socialist fame?
Anyway, I thought I would take a stab at number six, since I think the author has misunderstood the vital importance of placing the question of human destiny in the private, rather than public sphere. Western society teaches the origins of humanity in the "public" sphere because the methods used to develop the knowledge we have of human origins does not require the learner to adopt a particular religous or ontological position on human destiny. We can learn about the microbiological foundations of human existence without calling into question God's existence because the process of generating scientific knowledge occurs through empirical verification, not religious belief.
For example, let's assume for a minute that you and I are attempting to determine whether all dogs have tails. One way to do so is to appeal to a so-called religious authority. Your religion insists that all dogs have tails, whereas my religion insists that some dogs do not have tails. Your religious beliefs force you to reject the notion that the tail-less creature standing before us is, in fact, a dog. My religion can still accept this creature as a dog. The result is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be overcome through rational dialogue.
However, let's assume that someone has conducted an authoritative study of every creature that resembles a dog. They conclude that the tail-less creature before us is, in fact, more like a dog with a tail than any other creature. Now, you can still claim that the tail-less dog is not a dog, but now we can both engage in a discussion over whether the scholar's study of dogs was, indeed, definititve. You can conduct your own study that critiques the author's conclusions. I can review your conclusions and comment on whether I think you overlooked possible evidence. We can, in fact, engage in a rational discussion of the METHODS by which this conclusion was reached. Definitive knowledge may never be generated by this process, but the sifting and winnowing that occurs can be conducted in the public sphere because the rules that generate new knowledge can be shared by both of us. Remember, all scientific knowledge is conditional, not universal. It is conditional on what the evidence demonstrates. Darwin may be completely wrong, but in scientific terms he will not be wrong because the Bible contradicts him, he will be wrong because some other scientist found a way of describing the physical evidence in a more convincing way.
This is one form of rational discourse, and it can only occur when fundamental questions of ontology are set aside. When ontology dominates public discourse conflict is inevitable.
I often wonder what I, a Christian believer, would do if an evangelical (in denominational terms) believer decided to use the classroom to explore human destiny from the Christian perspective. On one hand, I generally accept the viewpoint being offered. On the other hand, I don't necessarily agree with the evangelical ontological perspective. Our discussion would be fascinating, but ultimately fruitless, since the acceptance of his position would violate my own ontologically held belief system. In fact, most of Western Christian history is dominated by attempts to force an ontological position on other human beings. The so-called banishment of the discussion of human destiny to the private sphere is, in fact, one of the greatest emancipations to occur in human history because it allows the individual freedom of conscience. I would rather live in a world dominated by individuals exercising the freedom of conscience, than a world where questions of conscience were solved through open conflict.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A few thoughts.
1. I have trouble believing that a sense of adventure is inextricably tied to one's views on our ability to objectively express reality. I mean, some of the young folks I work with who have autism and cognitive disabilities could never even understand the concept of "speaking truthfully about reality." It's way too vague and theoretical for them. Yet for them life is undoubtedly a great adventure. In fact, they probably see adventure around every corner way more than I do. Going grocery shopping is a grand event for some of them, and every day is a red-letter day. Maybe for this writer the sole adventure of life is tied up in "speaking truthfully about reality", but some of us choose to find adventure elsewhere.
2. As someone else said here, the facts of history are pretty much unchanging, although we sometimes get them wrong, such as the year of Jesus' birth. (Some scholars think it was something like 4 BCE.) However, the interpretation of history constantly changes. In the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, the title character, a talking gorilla, asks his unnamed student to tell the history of the universe. He then points out that, while the facts of the story he told about the origin of the cosmos and the evolution of life on earth were all correct, the way he told it clearly showed that he thought the origin of the human race was the climax of the story. Maybe what I mean is that there are two things going on here. On one hand there are the facts of history which exist objectively (even if we don't know them accurately). Then there are the narratives told in history books, which are constantly changed and edited not because the facts change, but because we have new interpretations of the facts.
3. I guess I kindof agree with the comment before that Einstein is nearly impossible to understand. I guess it just means that our worldview influences our understanding of reality more than we generally realize.
4. I don't really have any interesting response to this, other than that I agree that those in power have always used religion to manipulate and control. It's sure true in our country right now. I mean, the Bush administration has most of the conservative Christians eating out of their hands.
5. I don't really understand this. Is he arguing that we need new fuel other than Christianity? I can't respond without more context.
6. As an employee of public education, this one has some real significance for me. Although I'm a special ed assistant at a high school, I DON'T say the pledge in the morning because I think the words "under God" do not belong in such a statement. I love separation of church and state and think the "under God" clause is unconstitutional and oppressive to people who don't believe in God, including athiests, agnostics, humanists, and buddhists.
Should "revelation" be taught in public schools? I assume that by revelation he means the bible, but maybe I'm wrong. I guess I'm against the teaching of religion in public school, but not against teaching ABOUT religion. Because religion can so easily be a tool for oppressive folks in power, the teaching of one religious point-of-view in public schools opens up so many possibilities I don't want to ponder. If soemone wants their kids to learn religion in school, send them to a private school.
Human origins. I realize that in the world of religion, this is a devisive issue, but not so in the scientific community. One would be hard-pressed to find a credible scientist who is a creationist. Therefore, I think that if creationism is to be in our schools, it belongs in classes dealing with religion or current events and NOT in a science classroom because it is a religious and not a scientific view.
Human destiny. I'm having a little trouble understanding what he means here, but I'll give it a try. I looked upe the word destiny in a few sources. I'd like to share this one from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce: "A tyrant's authority for crime and fool's excuse for failure." The other definitions I've read have to do with eventual events or the end of someone or something.
So if by destiny he means what the human race will face at the end that certainly is covered in public schools: extinction. As Stephen Hawking said recently about global warming, it's just one of 100 ways we could wipe ourselves out. The eventual termination of the human race, of life on earth, of our solar system, and eventually of the universe itself are fair game for discussion in public schools.
I don't really understand how the teaching of the end of the human race gives us some kindof ground for moral discourse we otherwise lack. Maybe somebody could help me out here.
-Matt
wow - this was really good reading.
thanks to all for very insightfu comments! i'll get back to you on a new post soon...
Post a Comment
<< Home