gary@sphinx.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <1607@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >I think maybe you haven't studied enough. There are certainly >fundamentalists who interpret Scripture as you say. I see a similarity >(as far as intellectual integrity and *modesty* is concerned) between >that and the way rationalists (like you) take one kind of knowing >(scientific knowledge) and treat is as the only kind. Anything >beyond the means of science to explain is therefore myth and illusion. I fully agree that there are diverse ways of "knowing" and a variety of things to be known. The study of the bible is a good example. It [ the bible ] can function in a variety of contexts and there are a number of questions that can to put to it and asked of it. The bible (can be seen as)/(is) a collection of historical documents from the 1st century A.D. It is also a piece of literature. At this point one separates what is to be known and the methodology by which it is to be known. The problems come when you confound questions and methodologies. The bible as a collection of documents from the 1st century is of use to the historian only insofar as they are products of one particular mystery religion (Christianity) of 1st century Hellenism. Its attestations of various miracles on the part of one Jesus of Nazareth can be used to fill out the picture of other pagan religions and similar claims of miracles, resurrections and witnessed ascensions attributed to similar persons in the syncretism of the Roman world. The Bible as literature is quite a different matter, and to study this one need not consult the historian nor his methods. In this context one consults the literary critic (Wayne Booth) and those who make it their business to understand now literature *affects* people and by what literary and rhetorical devices this is accomplished. The really interesting (to me) work being done in theology these days has to do with constructing theologies based on this latter point that literature has this "existential payoff" as far the reader is concerned. The implicit sacrality of Christian Theology (religion) is the "magic" by which a purely constructed theology can achieve the aura of realism which is required for the reader to achieve some benefit. Some recent books on this subject are: Narrative Theology by George Stroup; God the Problem by Gordon Kaufman and a very recent publication by a Catholic scholar (can't recall his name) entitled: Constructing local Theologies. Literature does not have to be "true" to "work". Here I fulfill your requirement that science not be the only way of "knowing". Literary theory and fields such as "reception theory" and "sociology of knowledge" have not much to gain from a "rationalism" as they deal with the existential human being and not with the physical world. Rationalism has its place in the physical world. "Ways of knowing" such as literary theory, sociology of knowledge, audience criticism, reception theory and the like have their proper realm in the world of human being which must be sharply distinguished from nature. >On this issue of truth, I rather like the approach of Dr. Arthur Holmes >(_All Truth is God's Truth_, _Contours of a World View_). He's probably >a little too balanced for those who mistake their own epistemology for >metaphysical objectivity, but I think the man has a better appreciation >than most for how humans need arrive at truth and particular beliefs about >the world and about God. Although I have not read this book, from the title, it sounds like an entry into the realm of nature from some existential "wishing" on the part of human being. Again "truth" in a singular sense without a distinction between existential and natural. Given this, Dr. Holmes (natural)worldview will probably have all the earmarks and potential solutions that beset human beings. A worldview constructed by some untroubled mind of a physicist would probably have different "contours", be more rationalistic, less existential and might put rationalism to good use in its proper realm. >A rational*ist* theology spurns intellectual modesty and, I think, >ends up in the same boat with your fundamentalist theology (though >at different ends). If we are talking state-of-the-art modern theology there is no such thing as a rationalist theology. Theologians aren't that stupid. >>In a certain sense Fundamentalism is what it is because the people who >>practice it lack intellectual options. Van Harvey ("The Historian and >>the Believer") uses a nice term. He says that they lack "quality of >>mind". Translated, this means that Fundamentalists are stupid, and I'd >>concur with that. > >I suppose if they were as arrogant as to call others stupid, they >would obtain "quality of mind". If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then I'll call it a duck. "Quality of mind" comes from knowing what things are in Reality. Knowing is not arrogance. >>Perhaps we "saw off the branch on which we stand" to clear the forest >>of the dead wood that inhibits growth. You might thank the >>Enlightenment theologians for risking the climb and risking their lives >>in performing the action. Luther, as a Roman Catholic theologian, >>certainly did some "sawing" in his time and just look what grew as a >>result of that "clearing" operation. You, Mr Dubuc, have chained >>yourself to that dead old tree of Christian orthodoxy, and in time, >>secular theology under the orders of the Western intellectual tradition, >>in the service of "intellectual integrity", will come with the buzzsaw >>and take care of you and the dead old tree in one fell swoop. > >Luther sawed while standing on the Bible. I don't think there is >anything that secular theology is standing on. I rather think the >term is a contradiction in terms. Imagine that, by your definition >it is rational (I'd say rationalistic) thinking about that which one >doesn't believe to exist or believes to be irrelevant. I'll take my >chances with the buzzsaw. At least I won't melt with the next rain >or blow away in the next breeze. Luther did no more than replace one pope with another - the paper pope. The 1864 Vatican I pronouncement of the infallibility of the papacy is no different than a Fundamentalist view the the Bible. Both, I would say, assertions on shaky ground. In the literature, the term secular theology is used interchangeably with terms like post-modern theology and post-Christian theology. No one has yet come up with a good name. Mark Taylor has suggested "A/theology" yet Taylors project does not encompass all the different types of work being done (such as Narrative Theology). In a recent journal article I saw a reference to "those who used to do theology" in the context of those theologians who have accepted modern methodologies (such as Yale Deconstruction) and have found themselves now lacking a subject matter. What those theologians do now is "secular theology" or "what used to be called theology" They are basically those "constructing theologies" for other (less enlightened) persons (believers) to consume. I have a slight problem with this. >...... I don't think there is.... >anything that secular theology is standing on. > I'll take my...... >chances with the buzzsaw. At least I won't melt with the next rain >or blow away in the next breeze. >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd Secular theology is standing on 2000 years of intellectual tradition to which religion and Christian theology can be subsumed. Jesus gives this comfort at the end of the gospel of Matthew. "...All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go, make disciples of all the nations.... teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you, all the days until the end of the age." The same could be uttered by the Western intellectual tradition. Gary