The Object of Objectivity

Thank you Steve Holmes at Shored Fragments for your stunning defense of theology being objective. I cannot count the number of people who think the only objective things, and therefore only things worth knowing (or at least talking about), can be “proven” under some sort of materialistic empiricism. Oh how that circle makes me tired. Under the definition, their method is not objective since it does not lay out its assumptions and make an effort within the discipline to critically engage them. Thank you.

Top Of His Game

Lessig is still at the top of his game in this TED talk.

Oh My Mediocrity

This BigThink article has me tickled beyond belief. All social interactions are little games that we play. You try and find out which people you can be friends with, and who you will be enemies with. Apparently for the Italians the business world revolves around “sticking it to the man” by not living up to the expectations he sets. Though you must pay lip-service to it since you are in a state of oppression.

The explanatory power of this little explanation is amazing. It is beyond belief. It puts reality behind all the art about horrible working situations that we have become so entertained with: The Office (especially the British version), Office Space, etc. This explanation is beyond perfect – it actually makes me sad that our social constructions are so mired in non-communication.

Presuppositions, Problems in Reading

A fantastic piece by Paul Helm on the discussion of what happens when we read, specifically the presuppositions inherent in reading Scripture as Scripture.

There are various ways of articulating and defending our sensory and intellectual capacities in their role as gatherers of reliable information about the world around us. None of these is ‘biblical’ in any direct sense, of course. We cannot lift an epistemology off the pages of Scripture as we can lift a doctrine of justification off them. The epistemologies that have been used, in the history of Christianity, are at odds with each other, though parts of one are not necessarily at odds with parts of others. What matters is that we have reasons that support our belief in the reliability (though not the infallibility, of course) of our epistemological equipment. This will be sufficient to identify a book as the Bible, and to read and understand some, if not all, of what it contains. And then we are in business

The inherit understanding that the Scriptures, actually the truth contained in them, is available to us wholly, completely, and without mediation, is the primary mistake most people make when arriving. In Paul’s words “It [the Scripture] is not free from the vagaries and perils of sense-experience, something which has immediately descended from heaven and entered immediately into our souls.” It is this sense-experience contained within the Scripture that we must deal with. And we must deal without our own world and all its sense experience. Only by bringing those two pieces together can we actually approach an answer to the question of a Christian life.

As Paul again makes clear it is this experience that must be dealt with: “A person may be a disciple while not knowing even whether there be such a thing as Holy Scripture. Remember the thief on the cross. And the hymn ‘There is life for a look at the Crucified One.’” It’s great that we have a book – but the words in the book is not what this is all about. Don’t get sidetracked by it.

Official

Better get moving then [HT: James McGrath]

Talking and Listening

Fundamentalism cannot listen. And if you cannot listen you cannot speak. If you cannot listen you only speak about you, you cannot speak to someone else. You only speak at them. You leave no space inside yourself for them to exist and be considered. Fundamentalists derive their enemies of their humanity. So much for fundamentalist “humanists”.

It has become apparent to me over the last few years of writing this blog that the critical conversation is between the fundamentalists and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that presents the greatest challenge, in my opinion, to open dialog between all parties
Naked Pastor

The preceding quote mentions polarization. Groups that only talk to themselves become further polarized. This is a sociological fact. Fundamentalists often define themselves by a small number of essential truths. The ultimate question is not whether these truths are “correct” or “true” – but rather to discover why it is these truths and not others which orient the group.

If someone cannot tell you why they have not performed the necessary self-reflection that is required. Such reflection is required in order to actually positively participate in a dialogue.

Responsible Thinking

One of the things that really gets on my tits is irresponsible thinking. And this is why I love Jon Stewart. He has made a living off everyone’s irresponsible thinking. Then again, watching the Daily Show regularly really puts me in a funk. It eats me inside. It bothers me to imagine a world in which people say these things. I am beside myself once I realize that I actually live in that world. What a horror.

Come to think of it, this phenomenon is what drives both my work like and my hobby of theology. This is why I wake up every day.