From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 09:27:22 EDT
Good morning, Glenn. Thanks for another thoughtful contribution.
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> I agree that we can't worship the Bible, and that that is as bad as being
> an idolator or like the Israelites who believed that the Ark of the
> Covenant would save them from the Philistines. However, without some
> limitations one can run the gamut from atheism, to deism to pantheism and
> any other flavor one wants.
Correct. Limiting the source material considered to be religiously
authoritative can lead to corresponding limitations in the spectrum of
religious worldviews derived from it. Narrowing the scope of a "religious
data base" can lead to greater certainty in the theology (religious theory)
derived from it. If certainty is the goal, then limiting the sources to be
consulted sounds like a good strategy.
But look what happens if we were to follow the same strategy in science.
Selecting one set of data and discarding other available data sets might
lead to a scientific theory that seems very highly supported -- one in which
we might have (whether warranted or not) a high degree of certainty, but
what is the price of that sense of certainty? As a scientist, you know the
answer. Certainty has been purchased at the cost of accuracy or truth, or at
least an opportunity to get closer to the truth. As scientists, we value
truth above certainty.
It has long been my suspicion that the principal reason that religious
communities designate some particular text as the authoritative canon is to
achieve (at a cost) a sense of certainty that functions to stabilize the
community. It's a very pragmatic function; and to the extent that community
stability is good, the designation of a canon accomplishes something of
practical value.
> Everyone here knows how much I have struggled
> here even coming close several times to dropping the faith altogether. But
> one thing I have come to know is that every position one can take is based
> upon faith. And the faith is based upon what things in our epistemology we
> place highest weight on.
Glenn, we're on the same page here. We make choices, either consciously or
unconsciously. My own inclination is to make this choice as consciously as
possible and without fear that God (the Sacred) will send me to eternal
punishment if my best human judgment happens to err in some of those
choices.
> For the atheist, he places most weight on what he
> can observe, or in science or whatever. Often it is faith that God wouldn't
> cause the pain seen in the world. For the other religious positions,
> weight is placed upon the explanatory power that which is unseen offers for
> explaining that which is seen. Or it might be faith that there will be a
> final justice. But in each of those positions, any of which we could take,
> there are limitations placed upon the view, all of which are artificial.
OK, but I would use a word like "chosen" or "selected" in place of
"artificial."
> The scientific atheist never wants to know what caused the original vacuum
> from which all universes flow. In other words, they don't seek an answer to
> why is there something rather than nothing?
But the answer to the question, "Why is there a God rather than no God?" is
just as elusive as the answer to the question you just posed. Ultimately, we
are all staring in the face of deep Mystery. To pretend to comprehend that
Mystery is human hubris, whether expressed by Christian, Buddhist or
atheist.
I had said:
>>... we must thoughtfully distinguish between God and
>>portraits of God, especially those portraits inherited from
>>portrait artists of the past, portraits cast not in stone, but in
>>words that have been elevated, by human decision, to the status of canon.
You replied:
> I would draw from this the logical conclusion that if the words are
> elevated by human decision alone, then there really is no way to get any
> portrait of God from any writings at all. The reason for this is that if
> human decision is what determines canon in all religions, and given that
> various religions are inconsistent with each other, it leaves us with no
> basis upon which to judge the value of the 'portrait'. I would suspect
> that this view would cut us adrift. Would you agree?
And Josh added:
> Excellent point. Having been adrift on the sea of Mormon Theology, I am
> quite wary of those who appear to be trying to cut me loose again...
You also asked,
> That being said though, what is the point of holding to a religion which
> has no roots from which we are adrift in a sea of solipcism? Can you
> provide a reason? At least the atheist has science to hold on to. For me,
> the limitations upon our information sources at least give a framework from
> which to work. Without those limitations, I see nothing.
Your "adrift" metaphor brings us back to my earlier remarks about achieving
certainty at the expense of having a chance at getting closer to truth.
Glenn, you contrast the certainty that a canon provides to the predicament
of having "nothing" or "no basis upon which to judge the value of the
'portrait.' " I heartily disagree with your suggestion that "no basis" is
the only other option. The choice is not that black & white. Even without a
designated canon to limit and stabilize our theology, we still have all of
our cognitive and rational faculties at our disposal, to use in the same way
that we use them to evaluate empirical data without appealing to the
authority of Aristotle's scientific texts. It may be "messy" in the sense of
less certain, but, as in empirical science, I think we are more likely to
learn something valuable about Reality.
Skipping a bit, I had said:
> ... In some circles this list is 4-fold: Scripture, tradition, reason and
>experience. Not a bad way to go.
To which you replied:
> OK, so why Scripture? Isn't this inconsistent with the man-made cannon
> idea? I am just trying to explore your views. and why not Islamic or Hindu
> traditions? Leaving them out is a limitation isn't it?
You're right. There's no reason to exclude them, other than the limitations
of time to become familiar with them all.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 09:29:00 EDT