pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/18/84)
I want to clarify some points I made to Byron in response to his latest article: First, some affirmation of purpose: }Genuine critique is always acceptable. I would not have posted the }referenced article if I did not expect it. I offered my heterodox views }of Bob's five points precisely in the spirit of reasonable discussion as }a contrast to the more mainstream points of view represented by Bob and }Charley. I am surprised that so little discussion has taken place. }I agree with Paul completely about trying to avoid the hostility that }marks net.religion. I assume that each point of view expressed here is }the result of a honest and heartfealt search for some form of truth much }like my own. I am also hoping that questions will be honestly and }directly asked, rather than being loaded as they often are in net.religion. }If we all restrain ourselves a bit, we'll do just fine. I think the lack of response at the moment comes from a tendancy to be too polite. The group is still young and there is potential for much heated discussion here. One difference that I hope will manifest itself here is that we can all hold one another accountable to a certain attitude. I hope that as Christians, we are all accountable to the ethics of Christ and will take honest criticism to heart when our tempers do get out of line. One thing I would like to stress is that, not only is there nothing wrong with apologising when you have been unfair, it is necessary. Not much of that happens in net.religion and I think that is what contributes to its vitriolic atmosphere. When a wrong is pointed out it is more often acknowledged by silence, or deceptive finagling than an open apology or admission of our lack of understanding. Consequently, when no oil is poured on the troubled waters one attack only provokes another. I don't think there is anyway to avoid deep disagreement, hopefully we can can still discuss them without attacking. No one has all the truth here, but I'm sure we all like to believe we are following the Truth (which is Christ). }>The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject }>rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical }>(sensory) and existential ones. When this is done beliefs slip their }>anchor in reality. At least it makes any attempt at defining }>what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile. } }Paul continues with a critique which goes far beyond the point of the }original article -- to initiate discussion of the five Fundamentalist }points. A complete response to his critique would go far beyond the }polite length of a netnews article. I will respond here to the above }paragraph, then divide my response to his critique into several }articles to be posted over the next week or so. Please mail your articles to me, Byron. I will be gone over the holidays and will probably not have time to read them until Jan. Our machine expires articles after 10 days so I may not even see them unless you mail them. Now for some clarification: }First, I don't know what Paul means by rational and evidential. }I don't know what is irrational and non-evidential about my basis for }belief, at least any more so than more orthodox beliefs. I presume, }perhaps wrongly, that any adopted belief system must correspond to }some extent with the believer's internal and external perception of }reality. If not, then it cannot be accepted. Melodrama excepted, }I do not seriously believe that many people are "converted" to a }belief system diametrically opposed to something they have believed }a very short while before. Usually there is some preparation. Not irrational but non-rational. I am not saying that experiencial aspects of religion are not important. But I think that emphasising only that part with regard to one's own beliefs leave one without an adequate test for the truth of them. You seem to employ rational and evidential argument to defend the fact that you *don't* believe something. But I am interested in what tests for truth you apply to what you *do* believe. If your own beliefs are not subject to the same tests for validity that you apply to others, then it seems that you have sawed off the branch you're sitting on while still claiming to be supported by the tree. }True, I regard the canonical Christian writings as to some extent }suspect (more on this in a later article.) This does not mean I reject }them entirely. Rather, I merely exercise the right of interpretation }that the offices of the various orthodox churches seem to have held as }their perogative. Similarly, I reserve the right to extend }interpretation to non-canonical sources, not because they are any more }or less right than canonical sources, but because they may add to the }paucity of information provided by canonical sources. It is difficult }for me to believe that a Christian, in coming to an understanding of }the faith, would ignore historical facts regarding the canonization }process. This doesn't mean I think the process points out grounds for }rejecting the canonical view, just that it is yet more information on }which to draw conclusions. It is not clear to me that many othodox scholors reject other sources in trying to gain an understanding of Scripture. It's questionable whether we would even have a working knowledge of ancient greek and hebrew without consulting non-canonical texts. As I see it, it is no so much a matter of the exclusion of sources, but the criterion that makes the the N.T. documents the athority where the teaching of Christ himself is concerned. Considering secondary sources in determining the meaning of Scripture does not necessarily put those sources on the same level with the canon where authority is concerned. Textual (lower) criticism does not rule out consideration of extra- biblical sources; neither does it elevate those sources to the level of the canon of Scripture. }Finally, I cannot reject the testimony of the senses with respect to my }faith. I am surrounded by miracles each day. Charley Wingate says }that the Deity is somehow "outside" the universe. My senses tell me }differently. Birds fly, baking bread smells good, grass grows (in }summer, this may be a miracle I can well do without) I see, feel, }taste, smell and hear. I cannot separate this very living testimony }from the more abstract intellectual processes of faith. Again, more on }that in a future article. Let it serve for now to say that for me, the }Promise is fulfilled each day. Understand that I was in no way asking you to reject the testimony of your senses. Experience is not self interpreting, however. It does not in itself provide an adaquate test for truth. Experience in the primary sense is neither true or false. It just is. It is a *condition* of persons, while truth is a charactistic of *propositions* people make. Experience can not be used to support the truth (interpretive) of that experience. Truth finds its *source* in primary experience, but not its *substantiation*. Unless something (e.g. God) is actually experienced there would be no valid basis for speaking of the validity of the experience but the mere fact of the experience (primary experience) does not validate what we think about the experience (secondary experience). This is analogous to saying that the fact that a statement is made by someone (and we hear it) says nothing about the facticity of that statement. If the statment were never spoken (experienced) of course we would never have any basis for determining its truth, but neither does the fact of its being spoken provide warrant for claiming the truth of the statement. That is another matter. I hope this elucidates the point I am trying to make. What warrants the claim of truth for your views? If there is no warrant for that claim, how can it stand in contrast to other views which contradict it? Until next year, Have a blessed Christmas, everyone. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd