The paradox of Christianity,
in relation to early religion,
is that on one hand, it seems to assert
the unconditional benevolence of God
towards humans;
there is none of the ambivalence
of early Divinity in this respect;
and yet it redefines our ends
so as to take us beyond flourishing.
-charles taylor (canadian catholic philosopher)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
jh,
There's only half a paradox here -- one hand, but not the other. Am I missing something?
"it redefines our ends"
is
i think
the
"other hand"
Alms for an ex-leper? alms for an ex-leper?
Serio, the "glad tidings" of JC may have offered otherworldly hopes--but until Constantine or so, the early christians were often in rather miserable circumstances, were they not. More a historical than philosophical claim,really jh
they call the period to which you refer
the red period the age of blood
desert monks were after referred to as
the white martyrs
jh
jh,
I'll accept that the sentence is structured so that "and yet" is intended to introduce a contrast. I'm just deaf to it. It seems to me that he's saying (a) God loves us unconditionally, but (b) we're inspired to find ways to respond appropriately to that unconditional love.
But it seems to me that the previous "but," which suggests contrast, really ought to an "and so," expressing coherence and/or intensification.
The only thing that seems to me to be paradoxical about the quote is that Taylor refers to it as a paradox.
I'm perfectly happy with the notion there are paradoxical elements to Christianity, but love and the natural response to love doesn't feel like the stuff of paradox to me.
It's not your responsibility to work me out of this, but I remain perplexed.
grace builds upon nature super grace upon super nature
the cupola is
"in relation to earlier religion" natural religion
upon which
it cannot be argued christianity
buuilds
thus
acknowledging that rootedness
even in judaic practice
there leads then to a transcendental power which is not always apparent to even people of faith
on one hand we bear the imprint of religious prejudice and ambivalence regarding god
and on the other we nurture this beyond belief force that takes us to our natural end
anyway
i think that's what taylor is saying
we're becomeing more and more aware of ourselves as christians in an anthropological sense through the insights of folks like mircea eliade
and at the same time we're being moved to the ever brightening horizon
i think this is a paradoxical but a very mystical movement
the most recent trend of christian self awareness is marked by a renewed interest in the earliest christian communities and it seems that somehow this is forcing the christian witness to amazing and surprising levels of not only adaptablitity but of christ blowing in with a force that causes us to respond with awe "never in a million years would i have thought....."
it's exciting that you're willing to explore the implied other hand
that genuine love moves in a perfectly logical direction toward ever more love is perhaps the one christian given....that it does not work out that way all the time is our plight
jh
What of...
St.Augustine..the influence of the greek philosophers (a neo-platonic influence as well--ie, transcendence)...Logos...the gnostics (heresy or not a big part of the early church) . You seem to overlook that as does Doc Taylor, who seems a bit..white to be an authentic catholic. :] Oops-- negativity. scuzi.
jh,
the cupola is
"in relation to earlier religion" natural religion
upon which
it cannot be argued christianity
buuilds
Indeed, I agree, and I think you make an important point.
Let me push this is a slightly different direction, though. We all know (and you certainly much more than me) about the Catholic Scholastic tradition, which I'd like to tentatively summarize as the recovery of all philosophical knowledge consistent with Christianity from the Greeks. Is this fair to a first approximation?
I see both a danger and an asymmetry here.
The danger comes from the inevitable intertwining of religious belief with other intellectual activity. Thus, a Greek philosopher may have been lead to posit a proposition A out of intuition that was based on his religious beliefs. Proposition A might itself be independent of Christianity, which is to say, either A or not A are consistent with Christianity (but obviously not both simultaneously). Wouldn't the scholastic method be biased towards adopting A in such a case? Is this a philosophically sensible thing to do?
The asymmetry comes from the fact that the scholastics granted to their pantheistic and/or polytheistic greek philosophical forebearers a measure of intellectual respect that you seem unwilling to grant to the atheistic and/or agnostic scientists of currrent and recent history. On what philosophical grounds can you justify accepting philosophical conclusions of an Aristotle, while rejecting philosophical conclusions of a Darwin (who at least had a strong Christian influence, and even considered Anglican ordination)?
I do not mean this as a hostile question, but rather a probing one. As it seems to me that the scholastic tradition of Catholicism is asserting itself more strongly in Europe than here, as I understand that there's now a general acceptance of Gallelio's and Darwin's views in the spheres of their special expertise.
I suppose that my stance here is that the ancient scholars deserve a respectful hearing, but modern scholars have considerable advantages, in that they have (at least potentially) knowledge of the ancients that the ancients can't possibly have of them, and the moderns have access to vastly more observational data.
that genuine love moves in a perfectly logical direction toward ever more love is perhaps the one christian given....that it does not work out that way all the time is our plight
This is very well said, elegant, and maybe not quite right :-). I think that the words "logical" and "given" in the first phrase are a bit to strong. This is not so much a logical or necessary consequence as it is an aspirational one. The hard parts of this is that we often do a poor job of perceiving God's love, and we often do a poor job of remembering and responding to it. Our hearts are hard. As for the second clause, "plight" is fine, but I might argue that the second clause comes pretty close to being an operational definition of sin. So this isn't a minor claim, it's a terse summary of the human condition before God.
stu
have you ever considered a professional shift to something along the order of say
textual criticism
maybe you could take on all the new freespirited literature idiots who only read web pages
nonetheless
i appreciate your thoughtful commentary deriving from the lengthy tome of charles taylor
a particularly insightful read if one wants to get a sense of the breakdown between christian churches and society at large over the last 500 yrs or so
"The asymmetry comes from the fact that the scholastics granted to their pantheistic and/or polytheistic greek philosophical forebearers a measure of intellectual respect that you seem unwilling to grant to the atheistic and/or agnostic scientists of currrent and recent history. On what philosophical grounds can you justify accepting philosophical conclusions of an Aristotle, while rejecting philosophical conclusions of a Darwin (who at least had a strong Christian influence, and even considered Anglican ordination)?"
it is certainly fair to say that aquinass "baptized" the thought of aristotle simply becasue he saw in it a coherent and realistic view of the world in a way which was not too different from his view
othe thinkers maimonides avicenna did the same utilizing aristotle as a stepping stone to coherent philosophical statements
it appears to me that by the end of darwin's life he was fully cognizant of the idea of the split he knew what he proposed flew in the face of religious understanding (although he may not have fully appreciated the catholic approach to intellectual weighing of iddeas)
my resistance is more in the application and presumption
of darwinian thought the understanding brought about by thinkers liek mary midgely that we invest so much "belief" in these systems of thought as to make them tantamount to religious testimonials -- and people believe in them this way
the official position in the church has been one of openness and wait and see what comes of this...in regards to darwin...there has been some questioning and head scratching but never a denouncement from offical catholic sources
my reaction to darwin is:
nothing in the the theory as it stands has ever been proven - it remains specualtive theoretical at best
it annoys me to no end when i hear descriptions of life presented in the darwinian mode as if there can be no question this is how it played out and nobody can refure it
well i refute it
i grant darwin good status as a naturalist but i think he was lost in his own dream world of a perfect and coherent pattern of natural development amongst the species
it's hard to baptize darwin
tielhard de chardin tried
this resulted in a scientific language that bordered on transcendental spitiuality in a mode that almost nobody understood (despite the best and most interesting efforts of tielhard himself)
.
the way darwinism made its way into public discourse and the way it was utilized in the early part of the 20th century must give us pause...the eugenics movement which is still being practiced today in the use of the pill and abortion...is i find a degradation that i cannot countenance i cannot even look at the whole thing without being abhorred - and to some extent the fact that it is taking place is blostered by some presumptions about "survival of the fittest" - even if only dimly understood
to scientists i merely say
nothing in modern scientific effort is vital to us
it could stop tomorrow and life would go on we place so much "faith" in it all (and while admitting to the amazing breakthroughs - and able to place them in the context of the growing revelations toward the knowledge of god - and man)
my grudge is with the setting up of alternative faith contexts - be they conscious or "un"
for me all science shoudl return tot he domain mapped out by aristotle the "physica" the first level on the hierarchy of knowledge
in modern placement science is given premier status it is the thing to be aspired to it is the heavy weight of any university
and i consider it the lowest level of learning
insofar as it establishes a groundwork for philosophical speculation insofar as it points to theological understanding it has some value
when metaphysics returns to the primary understanding of being
when we can say the fact that something is is a mystery
then science will regain some credibility until then
i consider all science in the same way i consider the work of janitors
you want those people around they keep things clean but you can't ignore the humility implicit in the work
it is time to give philosphy primacy of place on top of the hierarchy of understanding
just below theology
the way thomas worked it out
all funding for science should be suspended every 5 yrs or so - directing the scientists to study their philosophy for a suspended year
when i get to run things
things will be different
alas
i wonder in the wilderness
lost to the ears of this world
thanks for checking in
i'm considering returning to a blog where my thoughts have a more personal take
but for now
i think quotes and poems are all there is
thanks J
for at least considering the tone of words
we can both measure our rhetoric against the high level of decency provided by our friend stu
jh
YOu mentioned CS Peirce a few days ago, jh--a thinker who attemped an interesting synthesis of evolutionary thought and..metaphysics (mostly Hegelian, IMHO). The RCC itself now accepts Darwinism (or old world creationism at least...fossil record, adaptation, etc) ,and rejects the wingnut new-earth creationists. AS your pal Coyne has pointed out.
But AFAICT (have only a bit of Taylor online ), Taylor's not engaging the relation of philosophy and science as a Peirce did. He's an ex-marxist who converted to the RCC. He got his ideas from Adorno & Co, mainly, I believe (--who hated the "Aufklarung"). . IN a way I agree--better CS Peirces, or Dr Percy or O'Connors or Ezra f-ing Pound than GoogleCo (or Wall Street). But what about....baptist and mormon wingnuts..jihadists..Opus Die.Cats? They hate secularists too. The issue is more complex than Taylor presents it as. Scuzi dissent
in fact
were you to read
a secular age
you'd know
that he fully understands the complexity of things
he calls this the time of vast mobilization of particular camps
all sorts of persuasions hunkerin down and defining themselves in extreme social terms
he's is not unaware of the multiple cracks in the old stoneware pitcher either
leaking all over the place
i wonder
is dissent a nervous reflex in some people
are there any neurophysiologists around
: --- { | }
jh
well....tbh I have a natural aversion to most postmod philosophizing and generalizations (which are quite beyond even Hegel's grand abstractions). As should..I dare say, any Aristotelian who values careful, syllogistic reasoning. I'll try sampling mo' of Taylor's conceptual stuff when time allows but...as I said, prima facie, his writing seems to follow from euro-marxists (not that they're completely mistaken) as much as he does from...RCC tradition.
Did you note, jh the point that the RCC now accepts Darwinian evo. for the most part, and rejects the Bachmannite view of creationism?(moses did not walk with pterodactyls, alas) . Even Dr Behe grants that, on a macro level. Hasta
jh,
have you ever considered a professional shift to something along the order of say
textual criticism
Nope. I have problems enough to deal with in my own discipline.
I believe that Darwin and his contemporaries (on both sides of the evolution vs. biblical literalism debate) suffered from a common failure of imagination, an "all or nothing" attitude with respect to scripture, and therefore with respect to the faith. If anything, this seemed more true of his opponents than of Darwin himself, although certainly some of Darwin's later followers (e.g., Wilson) pushed the "all or nothing" thesis hard themselves, but with the expectation of a different conclusion.
I believe you'd greatly enjoy Darwin's "The Voyage of the Beagle," an early work that is essentially a travel narrative, written by a man of great insight, observational power, and compassion. You'd think much better of the man if you read his own words. It is not a long or difficult book.
my reaction to darwin is:
nothing in the the theory as it stands has ever been proven - it remains specualtive theoretical at best
Well, from a scientist's point of view, I'd argue that this is wrong headed. Scientists don't seek proof, they seek critical experiments, and the evaluate hypotheses based on testable predictions. The theory of evolution has done very well by these standards.
it annoys me to no end when i hear descriptions of life presented in the darwinian mode as if there can be no question this is how it played out and nobody can refure it
Me too, actually. I've heard lots of evolutionary "just-so" stories that seem too neat, and which are essentially elaborate sketches that speculatively fill in the gaps between a few bits of evidence. But these stories seem pretty far from the biological sciences mainstream—it's kind of like trying to evaluate the theology of Trinity based on nothing more than the enthusiastic explanations of lay baptists. Of course, that's hyperbolic, and there have been real scientists (e.g., Gould) who have tried to explain evolution to the common man. But they too have tended to fall into a similiar style of writing.
A recent work that's worth considering is "Your Inner Fish" by my colleague Neal Shubin. I was particularly taken by the story of how the Tikaalik fossils where discovered. It was not "by accident." Shubin was looking for fossils that represented transitional forms in the passage from fish to land animals. Based on the fossil record, he believed that such creatures had to have lived at a particular time. So he considered geological maps that showed the location of sedimentary exposures dating from that time, and found some located on Ellesmere Island. He arranged an expedition, and found transitional forms with the predicted characteristics. That's a stunning confirmation.
my grudge is with the setting up of alternative faith contexts - be they conscious or "un"
I don't believe anyone is seriously proposing salvation by evolution :-). My point is that you're using a definition of faith that's too loose, so that it's watered down to mean little more than trust or authority.
in modern placement science is given premier status it is the thing to be aspired to it is the heavy weight of any university
and i consider it the lowest level of learning
Hoo, boy. That's not my experience. Yes, scientists get respect. But at Chicago, it's pretty clear that Economics, Business School, Law School, and Medical School types have more sway. Indeed, I don't see that the Physicists are any "heavier" in terms of university politics than the Committee on Social Thought folk. More expensive though, truth be told. FWIW, I know and respect members of both communities, but their domains of interest could hardly be more different.
As a logician, Doc Stu you are probably aware that Darwinian evolution is empirical: a matter of making inferences from data (ie, fossils, observing adaptation, lab reports,etc)--it's not a logically necessary truth. Now it looks pretty solid as a theory but has been modified (say by Mendel, or Gould's "punctuated equilibrium") . Behe claims it cannot account for various complex microbiological processes (of course Behe's IDT idea is not accepted by most academic bio-people but IDT's a challenge nonetheless). While I disapprove of the Annie Coulter-like..dismissal of Darwin, in short Darwinism is not...a truth in an axiomatic sense. Note that it also makes use of various normative terms---("adaptation, advance/progress, development, evolution itself"). Also recall the nasty applicatons of DarEvo. to humans--TH Huxley, etc and eugenics(partof bio.texts until 1920-30s) So when Dawkins and Co start chanting DarEvo as if was fixed in stone, gospel-- they are hardly different than biblethumpers themselves. One can understand some concern.
J,
As a logician, Doc Stu you are probably aware that Darwinian evolution is empirical: a matter of making inferences from data (ie, fossils, observing adaptation, lab reports,etc)--it's not a logically necessary truth.
Yes. Although there's no philosophical requirement that scientific theories be derived from observational evidence, only that they make testable predictions. But certainly, Darwin was inspired by observations (of himself and of others).
Now it looks pretty solid as a theory but has been modified (say by Mendel, or Gould's "punctuated equilibrium").
I'd say that the more serious modifications have come from the neodarwinian synthesis of darwinian evolution, genetics (doffing the hat to Mendel, but also to Galton), and to the revolution in our understanding of the biochemical basis of life (Watson-Crick, et. al.). These are mutually supporting theories, so much so that we hardly distinguish them today. But certainly one of the early weaknesses of Darwin's theory was that he had no explanation as to why desireable mutations weren't diluted in subsequent generations. It was a major theoretical problem of his theory that wasn't resolved until the Watson-Crick work.
I don't believe that any strong scientists believes that the theories they propose represent the final word on anything. Scientists generally understand their work as incremental, and as representing a succession of more correct, more complete explanations. If anything, the existence of ongoing modification (e.g., the Gould-Eldridge punctuated equilibrium theory vs. Darwinian gradualism) is evidence of the importance and vigor of Darwin's base theory: It's still engaging scientists, and they care enough to try to extend and improve it.
As for IDT, it's simply not a scientific theory. That doesn't mean that it isn't true, but is a strong claim that IDT is structured so that it doesn't make testable predictions. Here is one area where I think Gould did have something useful to say in his public essays, which often revolved around how a distinctive biophysical capability of a particular species was not an ab initio "optimal design," but instead was a modification of the biophysical capabilities of its ancestors, and so often had weaknesses or liabilites that a designed solution to the same problem would not.
In effect, the central problem of IDT is the central problem of religious experience: God reveals himself where and how he choses, and so close inspection of miracles often reveals non-miraculous explanations that are perfectly credible to people who didn't experience them. This doesn't mean that God is absent, or that miracles don't occur, but it does mean that proof of his existence can't be made transitive through logic or observation.
Also recall the nasty applicatons of DarEvo. to humans--TH Huxley, etc and eugenics(partof bio.texts until 1920-30s)
First off, TH isn't the Huxley of eugenics -- that was Julian. Second, everyone believes a mixture of true things and false things, so it can hardly be an argument against a theory that it's proponents believed things which we consider to be false.
So when Dawkins and Co start chanting DarEvo as if was fixed in stone, gospel-- they are hardly different than biblethumpers themselves. One can understand some concern.
Sure. But this is ad hominem. Sinners are just as capable of believing true things as Saints. They are, after all, the same people.
a distinctive biophysical capability of a particular species was not an ab initio "optimal design," but instead was a modification of the biophysical capabilities of its ancestors, and so often had weaknesses or liabilites that a designed solution to the same problem would not.
Behe would agree with that, most likely.He's not denying descent with modifications AFAICT. IDT was about showing the problems with Darwinian accounts of microbiology (Chas probably knew less chemistry than the average high schooler). The fundies who used IDT to say..this replaces Darwin jumped the gun IMO. But nonetheless...Behe's account of complex cellular processes is hardly just biblethumping. NOw, if you start with Ockham (as most academic scientists do)...you're going to dismiss it (then one might ask...does Darwin withstand Ockham, or the predictive ideal??not sure--no one, not even a Richie Dawkins or Behe can predict which species survive, and which won't).
At least as speculation IDT should be considered--perhaps it is philosophical in a sense, yet a bitmore involved than the usual phil. chitchat.. It does offer observational support--ie, the discussion of cilia-- for the design argument ((I would not say it proves...a monotheistic G*d exists yet....hasn't catholic tradition at least claimed nature has something to do with theology??..or recall the psalm.."the firmament shows His handiwork,"etc). Moreover my point on Darwin was not merely ad hom.It was more like..pointing out the ethical lapses...and naivete of darwinist-atheists (including Dawkins)
J,
It seems to me that Behe is the person who's overly invested in reductionism here. Darwin had no conception of the chemical basis of life. It was known that living tissue was constructed out of cells, but very little was known about the structure of cells. So Behe (or you in his name) argue that Darwin jumped the gun, because he could not account for nor explain the mechanisms by which his theory worked. But this is a misunderstanding—what made Darwin scientific and timely was that his theory made testable predictions in the general realm of adaptation and speciation. There is no reductionist obligation—scientific theories don't need to be accompanied by plausible mechanisms, they just need to make predictions.
Likewise, there's no completeness requirement. Can we use the theory of evolution to pick out the winners and losers of this world? It's doubtful, except in a few easy cases [snail darters and condors probably won't make it; cockroaches probably will]. But we can make predictions about unobserved intermediate forms, their age in the fossil record, etc. And these predictions have had an uncanny way of panning out, as in the Tikaalik example.
Indeed, I think it is relevant to remember the Kelvin anecdote. Darwin's theories assumed a long history, many hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years. Whereas, both the theologians (by relying on historical reconstructions based on scripture) and the physicists (relying on Kelvin's analysis of the sun based on black-body cooling and additional heat energy coming from chemical processes were absolutely convinced that the sun could not be more than 500 million years old, and probably not more than 100 million years old) were convinced that there just wasn't this much time.
Contrary to our expectations about such things, it was the evolutionists who won this debate over the physicists—which was realized once Eddington proposed nuclear fusion (rather than chemistry) as the source of the Sun's power.
Until the development of superior dating methods (e.g radiometric)Darwin and Lyell were working with skilled estimates..if not hunches. Yes, the hunches turned out to be correct--but that seems nearly as much a matter of luck as science. Darwin thought the earth was much older than the theologians believed--but didn't know how old(IIRC Darwin was off millions of years). Until the r-m methods evolution was merely guesswork really.
Darwin did posit transitional forms but didn't really say much apart from...there would be some. Anyway Stu I don't deny evolution per se But I do think (with Behe even)the theory was ad hoc, very broad (pre-genetics) and one might say slightly metaphysical (ie evolutionary "progress" itself) regardless of what hard-headed evolutionists claim. Moreover...evolutionists don't do much, as say doctors and engineers do. Biochemists might, but the typical field biologist collects samples/data and doesn't generally do much in the way of lab work/experimental science.
But I suspect we're interferring with jh's poetic vibe or Taylorisms (actually another beef I have with Dawkins --the meme idea. Shakespeare's not a meme)
as a vast outpouring of curiosity
the natural curiosity to know
i cannot fault science
but i maintain there is bad science
there is science run afoul
evolutionists are sort of like econmists they spend their days fussing and fidgeting around ideas and possibilities they know they influence laboratories and workers in the field but as far as i know they're all overpaid idealists who get their working images from hollywood and are set and are planning to organize the genome into such precise patterns of possibility so as to obliterate human will and force everyone to submit to the tweekers and managers of the natural world
they must be stopped
however
i will go to the library and
dutifully acquire
the journey of the beagle
wroof wroof
jh
jh,
however
i will go to the library and
dutifully acquire
the journey of the beagle
I think you'll like it.
But I'll note that Darwin didn't know genomics. I don't even think he knew genetics -- Mendel's work, although roughly contemporaneous, wasn't well known until much later.
There is this odd question where both science and religion come together, and it over the nature of the will. I find it a bit odd that both favor reductionist tendancies that are at odds with our naive self-understandings. Scientists, especially neuroscientists these days, take a strong line that intelligence is a physical manifestation of the brain, and that all human behavior can ultimately be given a neurophysicological explanation. Theologians, and perhaps most especially Luther, take a similar: it is our fate to be ridden, either by God or the Devil, and it's not altogether clear that we have a choice as to which.
But this seems to reduce to a farce every internal moral debate we've ever had, and whether we're good, or we're bad, it boils down in one case to our genes, and in the other to "the devil made me do it" vs. "all glory to God." These are not really different explanations. And I'm not at all sure that they're right. It seems to me that the moral decisions we face are real, and that the choices we make have consequences. Genes and/or the devil may bias our choices, but they are still our choices.
Post a Comment