Much of what Mark writes is agreeable to me. When he says, for instance:
If all sides of the religion-science debate admit that they are at best telling “likely stories,” then they can go about their work in peace. Each side can continue to use their own philosophic assumptions to spin new theories to explain the ever-increasing amount of data collected. Each side can tell their own story and the intelligent “neutral” can decide for himself.
But I would like to make two critical comments about the working philosophical assumptions/assertions that structure Mark's argument. My aim is simple: to make space for alternative possibilities and ways of thinking about the relationship between science and Christianity.
One: Mark's argument asserts/assumes a dualistic ontology. Though, it should be noted that his dualism is more tempered than a straight up Cartesian dualism. What does this mean? To use Mark's words, this means that:
The truth may be out there, but it can be hard to know....In other words, at its ontological foundation, Mark posits a metaphysical divide between the subjective observer and between the objective observed.
The truth about the world is there. The world is real and it is knowable. It is not, however, knowable with absolute certainty. This Cartesian certainty is just not available to humans after the Fall. Humanity is cut off from the world and from each other. The mere use of language to communicate guarantees that misunderstanding and mistakes will occur.
Two: Mark presupposes that language is at base a vehicle for communication. He uncritically assumes a correspondence theory of truth. Mark is working from a referential epistemology, wherein subjective observers tell stories that more or less accurately match/mirror/correspond to Reality. The Truth of something, its essence, is Objective and Timeless. But because people are fallible, theories and communications between people can never perfectly mirror Reality--stories can only approximate Truth.
Where do we go from here? We've identified that Mark is working from a dualistic ontology and that he employs a correspondence theory of truth. My next move is to suggest that while Mark is articulating one ontological-epistemological combination that has a rich history in Western metaphysics, there are other possible combinations.
Instead of a dualistic ontology that posits a divide between subjects and objects, we might assume a monistic ontology. This ontology does not posit a divide between subjects and objects. On the contrary, I argue that humans and their beliefs cannot swing free of their surroundings--they are intimately bound together. It is not subjects and objects, but combinations of relationships that give form and shape to concrete realities.
Epistemologically, a monistic ontology calls forth something other than a correspondence theory of truth. If there is no gap between subjects and objects, the problem of corresponding words to things isn't much of a problem anymore. On this view, words and stories are not primarily referential, but constitutive. Words and stories work as social bindings that tie people to their surroundings, giving them meaning and form.
So, we have a monistic ontology and a non-referential epistemology, which contrasts with Mark's dualistic ontology and correspondence theory of truth. These two different ontological-epistemological combinations work as philosophical groundings that enable us to spin different kinds of stories about different topics.
Thus, we have two kinds of stories about truth.
Instead of saying that the truth is "out there" and it is our duty to search it out, I would propose that the truth is immanent and it is our duty to make it happen here and now.
The fruits of truth are to be born out of our acts toward others. And it is from our conduct, our heart and our way, that we are judged (Jeremiah 17:10).
2 comments:
Hi Jacob,
I finall got around to answering you on my blog. Been off a while.
It is very interesting to me reading your posts.
"Instead of saying that the truth is "out there" and it is our duty to search it out, I would propose that the truth is immanent and it is our duty to make it happen here and now."
Christianity traditionally teaches that truth is both transcendent (ie out there) and immanent. An understanding of the immanence of Truth, though, is something very lacking in the modern evangelical church. It can be much more clearly seen if you read some Orthodox teachings.
If you are interested in expanding your knowledge of God and how different people have articulated their relationship with Him down through the ages you might try browsing this Orthodox discussion board
In particular I have really enjoyed the comments of the moderater MC Steenburg. He has a lot of wisdom. (As usual on such discussion boards their is a lot of junk in with the good stuff)
"Christian doctrine is the articulation of the divine life and economy. It is articulated experience, which itself fosters experience."
"The ‘faith once delivered’ was and is the singular reality of God, the incarnate Christ, and the life in Christ initiated by he himself as incarnate, passed along to future generations by those called to be his disciples and apostles. Orthodox theology is the theology of experience of this divine reality, of communion with the one who is personally the fullness of truth. This truth was ‘once delivered’ because Christ was once incarnate: truth and life can come no more fully, no more potently, than in his full becoming human. What is guarded and protected, ‘earnestly contested for’ and preserved, is the proper and right experience of this great truth that is the incarnate Son. It is for this reason that Orthodox theology is paramountly ‘practical’, ascetical, for its inner character is that of experience and relation, not dogmatic assertion."
These two quotes are from this thread
cgrace,
You said: I ran across this website about postmodernism and Christianity. In particular, I'm sending you the piece entitled the "Gospel of Postmodernism." In my view, it is one of the best explications of the relationship between the modern and postmodern ways of doing church. I highly recommend it."
I agree. Both traditions are there.
But, I would add, what I have enountered most often is an emphasis on God as "out there." God is "supernatural." Jesus is "king." All of these ways of talking about God and Jesus emphasize distance and externality.
When I wrote the original post, I was responding to this vision of God as "out there," so I emphasized the essentially different idea of immanent truth--God as "right here."
I agree, though, God is both immanent and transcendent. The name that goes with this view is "panentheism"--pan (all) en (in) theism (God), All in God and God in All.
Thanks for the links.
Peace.
Post a Comment