a deep, philosophical question

Hmmm, so that is how you are completing two doctorates at once. Can I write the chapter on Arminianism? <grin>

 

===========================================

Actually I was pondering Arminianism this last week (for about the 100th time) along with Molinism and Open Theism and , of course, the right view-mine. This was one of four short papers required for my first ACCS class. My chosen problem was if Adam were created 'posse non peccare', able not to sin , and Christ were 'non posse peccare', not able to sin, as is regularly held by evangelicals , then how could God have decreed all events as Westminster says? As Tom might explain , Cobb's Process Theology can deny that God foreknows all and so can Open Theism. They interface much actually. But classical Arminianism and Calvinism are struggling with two seemingly contradictory doctrines: divine exhaustive omniscience and free will. (even Calvin, see, believed man's will was free to choose as led by his nature- Institutes II: III:5). Nor does Molinism, in my opinion, "let God off the hook" by its proffer of counterfactuals. However I should "solve" this problem by this afternoon( ha!). This "solving" is the function of my great passion systematic theology--the integration/synthesis of Christian doctrines. I'm sorry to emotionally expose my absolute love for this stuff. Nothing on earth is more needful and satisfying to me than my "line" of Scriptural study. If I couldn't do it, I'd just as soon die. But I don't want to die because then I'd understand it all (unless the Atheists and others are right, of course) and lose the challenge. Here I am, 62, high blood pressure and diabetes, a prime candidate for the Big Cross-Over, spending my last years trying to learn what soon will all be made known. Yeah, the Atheists are right...I AM irrational!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Sure. Of course there are. It's part of the human condition That's why I made a post questioning how finite beings can claim to know that they have been in contact with God, directly or indirectly.

I'm very serious about this Bill. It's not a joke or a game. Religion is a subject of ultimate significance, and I'm betting my soul on my choices.

My remarks that you are responding to (by blowing off) were made in response to Orson's remarks about Smith's response to Pascal. The gist was that human beings are only human. If God is in any way good, we shouldn't expect him to damn us for doing the best that we can with what we are given. If anything, the evidence suggests that's God's intention.

Of course, some Christians argue that we are given far more, so that we have no excuse. We have Jesus Christ and the Scripture that proclaims him. We have Holy Spirits to guide (some of) us.

But that response lands us back at my, and DCross', original question. How can man possibly recognize whether or not particular events or writings have any connection at all to the divine?

Tom Head suggested going with your gut. I can see no other available alternative. But doing that leaves us with (at least) three problems:

The problem (for Christians) that because we are situated in a whole universe of faiths, we have no special reason to choose Christianity from among them.

The problem that unless we have an infallible god-o-meter installed in our tummies, there's no reason to think that our guts are any better than our heads at divining divinities. As you put it, our own cherished intuitions can obviously be distorted like a fun-house mirror.

And there is the problem that you yourself raised, that this puts us in the position of judging God. If I am expected to pick and choose from the offerings in the world-religions supermarket by use of my intellect and my instinct, I am making those faculties the judge of God. I will only worship a god that meets my specifications.

But what other alternative do I have?

(That's your cue, theologians.)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

That seems to trivialize the subject a little. If people make their religious "choices" by accident of birth, by wishful thinking or from spite, then either those choices are of little importance, or else they aren't being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

I think there's some truth to both. I suspect that choice of religion is less important than many people think, which makes the whole premise of this thread problematic. (Hell, damnation, "one way" etc.) And I think that the great majority of people adhere to whatever their religion is in a superficial manner. It's just part of their cultural matrix.

Choosing a religion on the basis of intellectual or experiential criteria seems more sound, at least initially. But I discussed some problems with that in my last post.

So that leaves a question about the *commitment* that you referred to:

Must one commit all-or-nothing to the inerrant truth of some particular set of doctrines that can't/aren't further justified, and to the necessary existence of certain beings whose epistemological status remains problematic?

Or can one commit to *possibilities*? Can one set off down a road whose end is not in sight, because others that you respect assure you (fallibly to be sure) that it does lead somewhere that you want to go?

I guess the question is, can a religious life be consistent with skepticism or even with agnosticism?

I have in mind the "negative" and apophatic theologies that one finds in virtually every theologically evolved religion. I also have in mind "pragmatic" theologies that are more interested in the inner changes that occur in the religious adherent traversing the path than in the ultimate realities that he or she does or doesn't believe in.

Something like this:

 

Do you have a reference or citation for this quote? It doesn’t sound like a statement a President would make – even if he believed it to be true.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

If there's one thing that's starting to occur to me about religion, it's that religious labels are descriptive, not prescriptive--rather than operating within a context, they are the context. They're more like languages than creeds. So one might be a Christian rather than a Buddhist for the same reason one might speak English rather than Japanese--s/he was born in an English-speaking country, and that's how s/he has learned to effectively relate, on a personal level, with the universe. And anyone who has learned to do that, regardless of his or her faith, has every right to be certain that his or her own beliefs are more accurate than anyone else's.

There are folks on both sides of the issue who believe that religion is a matter of accepting propositions, a goal rather than a method, etc. There is some truth to this view, but I think religion's primary role is functional. It is a response, a means, and an approach. (John Hick's 200-page definition of religion, provided in The Fifth Dimension, is the one I've slowly learned to use.)

They can be, without question--but they're still our intuitions. As long as we remember that we're on the inside looking out rather than on the outside looking in, they are as trustworthy as anything else in this world.

None, if you want to remain authentic to your own experience--but if you're not
satisfied with your own experience, there are more experiences to be had.

I suspect you've probably read John Haught's Religion and Self-Acceptance, but if you haven't, I think you would enjoy it. Haught is a Catholic theologian with (I think) a strong emotional agnostic streak, and appreciates these sorts of questions on a level that most people don't; and he answers the question in a way that would work as well for an agnostic Buddhist as it would for an ultraconservative Pentecostal.


Cheers,

 

The guy was, like his son, an awful impromtu speaker, prone to malaprops and the occasional gaffe.

I was just repeating what had been reported. Apparently, the exchange took place between GWB and a credentialed reporter from an atheist magazine while at the O'Hare airport in Chicago.

Consider the source, of course, but apparently the person is a credentialed reporter.

http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html

http://pub16.ezboard.com/frealismfrm5.showMessage?topicID=311.topic

http://www.tworetards.com/issues/020201_7/bushonatheists.htm

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html

http://members.aol.com/nogodperiod/propaganda.htm

 

I'm not convinced that broad religious choices are nearly as important as the choices one makes within a religious tradition, because the basic moral issues tend to be the same across the board--you can be a bleeding-heart liberal who still hates everybody or an ultraconservative nut who still loves everybody, and of course vice-versa. (In other words, I agree 100% with the pragmatic theology you outline at the end of your post, though I could not put it as articulately.)

I think the trouble here is that we tend to assume that if someone makes a choice because it's part of his or her cultural matrix, that choice was made out of a superficial desire to conform to societal norms. That's not what I mean to say at all. What I mean to say is that religion is so often a matter of acclimation--once you've learned to approach the universe effectively in one way, there is little reason to change your position. (And the same goes for the desire not to be religious.)

I think the other trouble is that we can't get away from the cultural matrix, even if we attempt to choose our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) based on intellectual or experiential criteria--no matter what we're doing, we're in some way responding to our own experiences as people who were raised in a specific religious or nonreligious context. You can't take the southern out of the boy.

(There is no must. One can be an atheist and scientific naturalist, one can be an agnostic, one can run off and join the First Church of Pebbles and Bam-Bam. As long as the choice is made in an authentic way, and not made out of hatred or spite, I think it's valid. But then I think I am, once again, providing a bargain-brand paraphrase of the brilliant quotes you attached to your post.)

This is another option, and the one I suspect we've both chosen--but here again, we've done so partly in response to our own cultural matrices. I firmly believe that if I had been raised Jewish, I wouldn't be nearly as syncretic.

I believe it can; and I think it can even be consistent (in some way) with atheism.
And of course if you're a Buddhist, theism doesn't have to play a direct role in the religious question at all.

Despite having only recently learned how to spell apophatic, I agree with you; Keiji Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness did wonders for my faith, though it will be years before I fully understand it.


Cheers,

 

I remember the elder Bush said something very similar to this in a televised interview sometime around 1992, and will keep my eyes peeled for the reference.

FWIW, Little Bush said at a 2002 Easter prayer breakfast that there are "many good people with no religion at all." Dubya also has a pluralistic soteriology--he specifically stated in a Beliefnet interview that he does not believe non-Christians necessarily go to hell. His track record on religious tolerance, faith-based initiatives aside, has not been that bad--he was, for example, the first major presidential candidate to add "and mosques" to the "churches and synagogues" line. It was a subtle touch, and he probably did it just to impress people like me, but I liked it. Didn't vote for him, but I liked it.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

One issue that I have seen is the convenient grid through which everyone's "intellectual" or "experiential" criteria usually undergoes---each person's inherent preconceived ideologies.

For instance, if I am trying to prove something from an atheistic perspective, I will go to any "intellectual" source, or evaluate everything experientially, through my preconceived notion concerning same. Since this baggage necessarily exists---can true objective dialogue ever occur? Or will all perspectives of an issue draw their virtual lines in the sand?

Hoping to become more objective as the years pass,
Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Just a cursory glance across the 'net exposed this, listed as the opening quote of the book you've referenced:

Since I have accepted the perspective of God presented in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, I am comfortable living in the knowledge that I might be wrong. If I am...what have I lost?

Steven King

 

And the statement is true, there are indeed many "good" people who are non-religious, i.e., no formal religious affiliation. Hitler was known to display affection for children, and Stalin was very kind and good to his dogs. Personal goodness is irrelevant in terms of a Judeo-Christian soteriology. But I, too, like what he said.

Now about the vote, surely Tom you aren't a Democrat!!! :---))))

 

Sure. But the issue can't simply be left there, since mankind is presented with a multitude of competing and inconsistent voices, all purporting to be God's.

And I have no intention of attacking that belief. My question is about why I, or anyone else, should join you in sharing it.

Because while our Degreeinfo theologians take great delight in "bantering", they seem to have little or no interest in talking to anyone who doesn't already share their presuppositions.

I have no problem with that. The problem is that mankind must *recognize* God's own self-definition. How can we acknowledge God unless we already know what to look for?

If God violates everything that we expect a god to be, what is left that assures us that God is indeed a god?

Because if mankind has no means to *recognize* what you say God has revealed except through the use of man's own fallible and finite faculties, then God needs to provide man with a revelation that satisfies those faculties. Otherwise the revelation will be ineffective.

How can man be condemned for failing to do what he *can't* do? That implies that this must not be an impossible task, and the means to accomplish it must not only be available, but simple enough to be available to all, regardless of education or theological training.


So, who better to ask for an explanation than a discussion group full of theology doctoral students?

I'm not arguing for atheism. Atheism can be questioned in much the same way that I'm questioning the theologians. How is it that atheists are so sure that they can *deny* the existence of transcendent realities that exceed their understanding by definition?

Bill, you *love* to talk theology. You turn every Degreeinfo thread that you can into a theology thread. But not all of us are theologians. Not all of us are evangelical protestants. Not all of us are even Christians. What I'm doing is asking you to talk to the rest of us.

And frankly, these are questions that I would have thought would be of great inherent interest to theologians.

You have endless time and space for theology-banter.

If you are going to keep starting theology discussions on Degreeinfo, don't be offended if people who are not protestant evangelicals want to participate too. Don't be shocked if they want to raise their own issues, just as you love talking about Jacobus Arminius or Greek and Hebrew texts.

 

And the Mormon enjoys talking with you (and everyone else here) as well. Exchange accomplishes much, while belief-bashing accomplishes nothing.

Tony

 

He is.

 

Bill,

According to the Rand/McNally website, the distance between Salem, Oregon and Burlington, NC is:

2911 miles
47 hours, 10 minutes driving time.

So please, stop by my house anytime! Its the one with the two lifesize statues out front--one of James Arminius, the other of John Wesley. <grin>

 

Can you say Faux Paus

Anthony,
I apologize for how this might be interpreted by a Mormon. I am aware of Stephen Covey's track record as a Mormon. I erred in stating "Christian" as a purely protestant, evangelical orientation.

Steven King