From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 19:37:03 BST
Sam, Rick, Scott and all philosophers:
SAM WROTE:
Where I am uncomfortable is thinking that this process of abstraction
provides a cognitively superior viewpoint - I would deny that.
SAM ALSO WROTE:
The essential conceit which I object to is the notion that there is 'neutral
ground' from which it is possible to impartially assess the truth claims of
different religious beliefs (ie 'objectively').
RICK RESPONDED:
In light of these two comments, the question arises whether objective
reason needs to be a "neutral ground" in order to be "a cognitively superior
viewpoint". I don't believe it does. That is, I do think that knowledge
rooted in objectivity is superior to (ie. better than) knowledge rooted in
faith, though I don't believe objectivity to be a truly 'neutral' viewpoint
(as I understand your use of the term). It isn't a neutral source of truth,
it's just a better source of truth.
DMB SAYS:
I think these discussions about objectivity, neutral ground and emotionless
abstractions are really just tangets to the original objection, and have
only served as a distraction. I think they are not directly relevant because
the objection was not about metaphysical claims or final truth claims. I'd
simply objected that, to the extent that it is tied to sectarian religion,
theology begins with the conclusion. I don't mean "conclusion" in the same
sense that has been raised with respect to underlying assumptions of
scientific materialism or anything else. I was referring to something far
less subtle than that, more along the lines of Father Son and the Holy
Ghost, not the existence of substance in a quantum universe. I'm talking
about big conclusions like our origins, meaning and purpose of life, not the
assumption that reason and rationality are valuable.
SECTARIAN adj. 1.) Of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. 2.) narrowly
confined or devoted to a particular sect. 3.) narrowly confined or limited
in interest, purpose, scope, etc. -noun 4.) a member of a sect. 5.) a
bigoted or narow-minded adherent of a sect.
An objection that it "begins with the conclusion", is simply pointing out
that perhaps the difference between what's social and what's intellectual
can be demonstrated by the tension between doctrinal authority and
intellectual freedom. My questions about and objections to putting theology
on the fourth level revolve around that. Its not just a matter of whether or
not the church officals will admit the earth is round, its about the aims
and purposes of that mode of study. Is it fair to say that theologians are
encouraged or even free to question the Church's central doctrines? The
distinction between social and intellectual levels, in this case, seems to
revolve around the issue of authority and freedom.
Tanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 19:38:59 BST