arndt@indian.dec.com.UUCP (10/01/86)
"Ahhh, . . . I'll have 1/2 lb. German baloney thin sliced, and 1 lb. of 'Faith', please." Some net folks seem to think this is the way Christians (or any 'religious' persons) get their faith. Slice it off the roll at church just like you would slice baloney off the roll at the Delli! Somehow 'religious' questions, the 'why' questions, are not to be dealt with by reason. CAN'T be dealt with by the use of reason even! No doubt these net folks take their cue from Davie Hume" "If we take in our hands any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." [David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, London, 1748; modern edition by C.W.Hendel, (New York:1955) concluding lines.] Again, remembering my posting "Rowing Through the Fog", Hume's contention that all meaningful statements are either a relation of ideas or else about matters of fact is itself neither of these and so falls. Then we have some Christian writers who themselves can't bring reason in to support faith: Rudolf Bultmann says, "(faith). . . must not aspire to an objective basis in dogma or in history on pain of losing its character of faith." [In, Faith and Understanding, vol.I p.15] But as H.P. Owen points out, it is impossible to separate the act of faith from the object of faith as proposed by Bultmann. "Believing 'in' is impossible without some measure of 'believing that'" [Charles W. Kegley, ed., The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p.47.] Pannenberg has noted the essential connection between faith and its rational basis. "The essence of faith must come to harm precisely if in the long run rational conviction about its basis fails to appear." [Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology, vol.II, p.28.] You see gang, Rich Rosen really DOES have a point that there must be REASONS why one believes. One could ask Rich (and Hume) why they choose their philosophical 'axioms' rather than some other. One can say, "I don't understand it all but I trust that the rest would make sense if I could. So based upon what I DO know now 'I believe'. One can say that in math or any other science or in talking about religious ideas. Math systems are often believed to be 'true/right' because they 'fit' or are 'beautiful'! If that's not religious/mystical/'faith' what is? Some see a 'mystical' approach to the 'why' questions as an alternative to a 'reasonable' approach. As if 'reason' were only one of a number of ways to answers. Some believe that the 'logical' approach to 'why' questions is a modern advancement in the evolutionary (what else?) flow of man's development. For example: The French scholar Levy-Bruhl contends that primitave man was 'prelogical' in his thought and tended to the mystical and magical rather than the logical and analytical. Careful field observations have not supported this thesis. Bronislaw Malinowski notes, " . . . every primative community is in possession of a considerable store of knowledge, based upon experience and fashioned by reason." [In, Magic, Science and Religion, p.26.] No society operates without a nod to the law of cause and effect and the principle of noncontradiction. These ideas were not 'born' with Aristotle! Yet one hears the idea that Eastern thought is 'mystical' and Western thought is 'logical'. In a careful study of modes of argument in Indian and Western philosophy Dan Daor conludes that, "Indian philosophical reasoning is as careful and logical as that of the West. There are certainly differences in emphasis and style, but not in intrinsic logicality." [Dan Doar, "Modes of Arguments," in Scharfstein, et al, Philosophy East/ Philosophy West. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, p.28] He goes on to note that the reductio ad absurdum type of argument is common to Indian, Chinese, and European philosophy and that, " . . . the Chinese intuitively used the same modes of inference used by the Greek and Indian philosophers." Ibid. p181. Not only is 'faith' without reason a mental cotten candy it is a MYTHICAL mental cotten candy!!! It don't exist! So here we have this guy and that guy jumpin' up and sayin', "I GOT IT!" "FOLLOW ME!" As someone once said on the net, "How do I know to follow Christ?" My answer is that it is done (the decision) the exact same way one decides which of anything else in life. Did any other historical figure exist and what is claimed about his life and words. The Yuppie techie techie nurds never heard of Historiography. Mikki Barry is a good case in point. She makes a big deal about the '200 gospels', those books written by those 'other Christians' that the Church fathers don't want you to find out about because it contradicts the 'Bible'. She neglects to inform us that no scholarship has ever put them forward as worthy of serious contention with the 'Bible' as we have it. Yes, Parade Magazine has highlighted the 'lost' gospels, etc. But from earliest times they have been rejected as written by anyone living at the time of the events described. The early Church rejected them. The are in a class with Hugh J. Schonfield's, Passover Plot or a book called something like, The Cross and the Mushroom (Jesus was part of a mushroom cult, etc.). Wagons of the Gods! The early church (3rd C.) in the face of 'secret knowledge' of the Jewish Oral Tradition variety, published a list of accepted authoritative sources of their faith. Eyewitness accounts only need apply! Ones they KNEW to be eyewitness accounts. Some writings of early church fathers were left out even though they did not contain anything contrary to the received teachings of the disciples (remember Paul claimed to be and was received as an apostle). For example, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was not included in the 'Bible' even though he was held in high regard. Anyway, the historical value of the Bible has improved with examination over time. Not as one might expect if it were myth. The CLAIM on which Christianity rests is HISTORICAL!!! It actually happened! That's what our faith rests on. We have an inscription naming Pilate specifically. An altar 'to gods unknown' has been found in Greece a la Paul's visit to Athens, etc. etc. Both Jewish and Christian scholarship portray the accuracy of the life described in the New Testament. We BELIEVE the witness of the writers of the Old and New Testaments as to both the events and the meaning of the events they portray!! There are logical standards by which one judges if one believes a witness to events. And for various kinds of interpretations of them. Well, gotta go. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen) (10/03/86)
In article <5682@decwrl.DEC.COM>, arndt@indian.dec.com.UUCP writes: > > "Ahhh, . . . I'll have 1/2 lb. German baloney thin sliced, and 1 lb. > of 'Faith', please." > > Some net folks seem to think this is the way Christians (or any 'religious' > persons) get their faith. Slice it off the roll at church just like you > would slice baloney off the roll at the Delli. Somehow 'religious' questions, > the 'why' questions, are not to be dealt with by reason. CAN'T be dealt with > by the use of reason even! [goes into discussion of fatih quoting Hume, Bultmann, Pannenberg, and others.] Ken, I feel like your heart is in the right place on this one and actually think that I can agree with your thesis. Although in the the above discussion I think you might have done well to mention what the Church fathers' had to say on the subject. Remember, these men were faced with the problem of bringing an outlaw faith to the populace who had been conditioned to accept Plato and Aristotle as the authorities. Here are the roots of modern Humian empiricism. It was a great undertaking to present a rather semitic tale of Messiahism and make it palatable to people trained in the Greek epistomological outlook. Especially given that they had no real political power until much later. A case in point is the early debate on the role of reason with regard to faith. Justin Martyr and Athenogororas (about 140 C.E.) make the supposition that revelation and reason are almost identical. Nature, as in the change of the seasons, shows that miracles and ressurection make and sense and are reason- able. Clement of Alexandria and Origen (about 150 C.E.) take the opposite viewpoint that there is nothing in nature to back up certain religious truths. They argue a fundamental difference between faith and reason. Faith is a gift of God's grace and is therefore a mystery "above reason" but not "contrary to reason". This is an important view which I believe gets a little muddled in your expos- ition. Eventually, it is this second view of Origen's which becomes the way that the early church dealt with this question. I believe that it is still the way it is dealt with. That reason and faith coexist in the religion and are non-contradictory. Each has it's limits. Pure blind faith is rou- tinely lambasted on this network, but reason without belief in the extralogical is equally limiting. You eventually reach a point where it doesn't work-- see Kurt Godel's proof on 1904 and the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. The first shows that any logical system, no matter what it's axioms, it will con- tradict itself or you will have to have to define your way out of it, creating a non-closed system. The Uncertainty Principle is a truly fascinating case where the Principle of Universal Causation is used to come up with a condition in nature which flatly contradicts is. Ask net.physics. Hence, in both cases, the systems contradict there suppositions calling the entire line of reasoning into question. But do we chuck logic and physics out the window because of it? No. We have faith that something in certain conditions the systems seems to work. But then science and mathematics become disciplines of faith just as religion is. > You see gang, Rich Rosen really DOES have a point that there must be REASONS > why one believes. One could ask Rich (and Hume) why they choose their > philosophical 'axioms' rather than some other. > > One can say, "I don't understand it all but I trust that the rest would make > sense if I could. So based upon what I DO know now 'I believe'. One can say > that in math or any other science or in talking about religious ideas. Math > systems are often believed to be 'true/right' because they 'fit' or are > 'beautiful'! If that's not religious/mystical/'faith' what is? > I feel like you really need to expand on this because it is very important. Science and math are based on empiricism, but it's a pure act of faith when Euclideans or Number theorist choose their postulates. They have an intuitive sense, but that is all. This is an extralogical attempt at describing the truth. What differentiates this kind of operating from that of a rational religious tradition? > Some see a 'mystical' approach to the 'why' questions as an alternative to > a 'reasonable' approach. As if 'reason' were only one of a number of ways > to answers. Some believe that the 'logical' approach to 'why' questions is a > modern advancement in the evolutionary(what else?) flow of man's development. > This brings up a real misconception among empiricists. So often they believe they have the only way to answer 'why' questions and specifically 'what' questions. While I would argue that some why questions can be addressed reasonably, 'what' questions cannot. Science is a discipline of description. It not designed answer questions of an a priori nature. In science, you can only say "given A, I can can deduce B"--that is the scientific method. But science cannot answer the question "What" is gravity. We know what gravity will do, but we do not know what it is. We have faith that everything that has mass has gravity, but we have no logical reason to believe it. It's just that everything that we've measured so far has gravity. But that's not to say that it will exist tomorrow. Science can offer us no reassurance whatsoever that gravity, electricity, or the nuclear strong and weak forces won't just "turn off" tomorrow. In a way, science is much more "faithful" than religion, because the existence of gravity, for example, is never doubted, even though there is really no causal reason for believing in it. > > So here we have this guy and that guy jumpin' up and sayin', "I GOT IT!" > "FOLLOW ME!" As someone once said on the net, "How do I know to follow Christ?" I'm really sorry if I sound condescending here, but this next section is where I think you get into real trouble. > > My answer is that it is done (the decision) the exact same way one decides which > of anything else in life. Did any other historical figure exist and what is > claimed about his life and words. The Yuppie techie techie nurds never heard > of Historiography. Mikki Barry is a good case in point. She makes a big deal > about the '200 gospels', those books written by those 'other Christians' that > the Church fathers don't want you to find out about because it contradicts the > 'Bible'. The fact of the matter is that the NT canon is very problematic. While I have to disagree with Mikki's conclusions that the only reason certain books aren't in the canon is that the Church Fathers were self-serving hypocrits, I cannot agree that the canon is the result of consensus of inspired men and is therfore without fault. There existed too much uncertainty and upheaval in it's context for it to be perfect. First of all, the seat of Chrisiianity was completely levelled in 70 C.E. Remember, until the Romans invaded Judea the Christian church was based in Jerusalem. The Jews remember this as historical tragedy of their faith, and I have never quite comprehended why Christians do not remember with more horror the seige and destruction of Jerusalem. The church structure founded by James, the brother of Jesus and Peter, ceased to exist! The writings by the apostles and their congregants were destroyed. We can only hope that archaeology will someday uncover these lost treasures in some form. There began then a scramble by the churches in Rome, Alexandria, and Constan- tinople a rush to find apostolic sources. This search was somewhat successful but at times was fraught with political conflict that had little to do with ascertaining the truth of the documents or building a bas from which to work. Christianity had the disadvantage of spending it's formative years as an out- law religion and therfore became subject to unusual pressures. > She neglects to inform us that no scholarship has ever put them > forward as worthy of serious contention with the 'Bible' as we have it. Yes, > Parade Magazine has highlighted the 'lost' gospels, etc. But from earliest > times they have been rejected as written by anyone living at the time of the > events described. The early Church rejected them Again, I think you've missed the mark. The early church at the time the canon was being developed was a highly scattered and somewhat nebulous body. Consequently, because communication was bad, consensus over what was a slow and painly process. It is way too easy to say the "the early church rejected them" or that they have never con- tended seriously with the bible as we know it. The fact of the matter is that some of these works were know and quoted by the Church father's in their own writings. In fact, most of what we know about these 'lost gospels' comes from the likes of Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, and particularly Eusebius quoting them and drawing on them for information. > Hugh J. Schonfield's, Passover Plot or a book called something like, The Cross > and the Mushroom (Jesus was part of a mushroom cult, etc.). Wagons of the Gods! > Your comparison and implied derision of Dr. Schonfield's book is completely irrelevant here. His work is highly speculative and in no way represents itself as a "gospel". His scholarship is quite good however, and where he does indulge in specualtion, he clearly states so. To me his only problem is that he proceeds a priori from the premise that Christ was NOT divine. This is certainly no worse than Christian scholars assuming that he was divine, however. In fact, I find his thoughts on the authorship of Johannine documents to probably be accurate. > The early church (3rd C.) in the face of 'secret knowledge' of the Jewish > Oral Tradition variety, published a list of accepted authoritative sources > of their faith. I know of no such published list. The closest thing I can come to to finding something that resembles this is in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons composing a list of what he considers to be definitive. But this was one man's opinion. Although it did concur remarkably with the canon that eventually arose with the conversion of Constantine. > Eyewitness accounts only need apply! Ones they KNEW to be > eyewitness accounts. Some writings of early church fathers were left out > even though they did not contain anything contrary to the received teachings > of the disciples (remember Paul claimed to be and was received as an apostle) Here, we are in serious trouble. First, two of the Gospels, don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses or by apostles (remember that while Paul was an apostle, he was not an eye- witness). Mark was a traveller with and interpreter of Peter. His Gospel at best, is a second hand accounting of the preaching of Peter. Luke also was not an eyewitness. Not only was he not an eyewitness, he was not even a chronicler of an eyewitness. He recalls Paul's version. I'm afraid that most of the truly apostolic and eyewitness accountings of the life of Christ perished with the Temple at Jerusalem. Second, the authorship of even these canonical Gospels is held in serious question by even the most conservative of Biblical scholars. It is certain that even if they were written by those who bear their names, that the forms in which we now have them are not the original. For an excellent discussion of the probable history and development of the canonical forms, please see the Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels in the General Edition of the Jerusalem Bible. Thirdly, we cannot even be sure that what has been handed down to us since the canon is the same. All we have to check are scattered Codices and Papyrus dated centuries after the conversion of Rome, none of which agree completely with eachother. > For example, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was not included in > the 'Bible' even though he was held in high regard. > > Anyway, the historical value of the Bible has improved with examination over > time. Not as one might expect if it were myth. The CLAIM on which Christianity > rests is HISTORICAL!!! It actually happened That's what our faith rests on. I couldn't agree more. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus or the impact that he had. There is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Alexander the Great. More evidence for Jesus than for Persian monarchs that it would not occur to us to doubt. But, Ken, we owe it to ourselves as Christians and to those to whom we would minister, to get our facts in order and freely admit what we do and do not know. Here is the whole issue of faith vs. reason coming to a head. We can- not be afraid of what we do not know, rather use it as impetus to come to a greater understanding. WE must critically examine all sources available to us. The NT is not the end. We do not stop after we have absorbed NT, rather it is a springboard into greater intellectual and spiritual challenges. For that is the true story of the history of the Christian religion. A search and re-evaluation. Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Anselm, Francis, Aquinas, and Martin Luther all called for radical reorganization of Christian thought based on developments in secular knowledge, political and socialogical developments, as well as inspired re-thinking of existing doctrine. What we need to understand here is that the tradition is fluid, not static. Constantly researching, and refinding, our heritage in new contexts is what keeps our writings sacred and our religion holy. I feel very strongly that the grave lapses into evil by our Christian church in the name of the Holy Spirit has been largely the result of a lack of self examination--soul-searching, if you will--to find our God and our Saviour. In other words, we've got to do our homework. It is astonishing how little Christians know about about the history of their church, but that's the subject of another posting. In the meantime, may God bless, Jason Kinchen