Saturday, October 30, 2010

Scholarship defends AGAINST the Bible?

Chad sent me a quote (sent to him by a friend) from Soren Kierkegaard that reads in part "Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close."

Chad wondered what I thought about it. Since Kierkegaard's perspective is probably shared by many Christians today, I thought I'd share my response....this is a bit ragged, but I think the gist is clear:

I've never read anything by Kierkegaard...but anytime I run across a quote from a highly regarded philosopher, I have two snap reactions:

1. To look for info about their place in the development of theoretical thought, and

2. To see if they are considered "hard" to understand.

In this case, SK doesn't seem to be considered "hard" to understand; unlike, for example, Hegel. So, I suspect the quote can be taken fairly literally. The fact that it doesn't have abstract terms whose meaning is unclear is another indication that it's probably intended to be taken literally.

Regarding SK's time and place in history, the wikipedia article indicates that he was reacting against the Age of Reason.

Although it's a gross oversimplification, there have been roughly two poles in Western theoretical thought since the Greeks began it ~2500 years ago...at one extreme are those who emphasize the metaphysical/mystical/spiritual, the transcendent, the romantic, and the Self (which, by the way, Kant put in the metaphysical realm). At the other end are those who emphasize the physical/material, the immanent, the rational, and the senses.

It appears to me that SK is more in the Romantic camp than the Rational camp. There's a lot of history surrounding his time and place that's better understood via a book (I have at least 3 I'd point to immediately, but any good history of philosophy & theology will cover the essential points).

Bottom line from my perspective: SK very understandably reacted negatively to the Rational attempts of his time to ground all knowledge in a rational (I'm using this word in a philosophical sense; i.e., all knowledge is via reason) base. Unfortunately, he does not appear to attack the fundamental error of rationalism...which is the grounding of all knowledge in the knower. Instead, he seems to have kept the base of knowledge in the knower...but in a mystical leap of faith rather than a rational analysis.

The Bible is clear on at least 3 points

1. All knowledge has its origin in God...the ultimate knower. Any attempt to originate knowledge in some part of creation is doomed to failure.

2. As beings in the image of God, we are rational and much of our knowledge is captured and communicated using reason. However, since we're not God, that knowledge is, by definition, incomplete. And, in a fallen world, it is occasionally flawed. As such, we should be humble about what we know.

3. As beings in the image of a Triune God, we are relational...so our knowledge is not simply apprehended (i.e., "even the demons believe"), but it is lived out in relationship. Everyone, explicitly and implicitly, places their trust in certain fundamental truths. Although these truths are not subject to proof in some rigorous sense, they are subject to being evaluated for reasonableness and plausibility. A part of that ongoing evaluation is the living out of those truths, which produces a knowledge of God, of others, and of creation that is relational...the living out of rational propositions about what is believed to be good, true, beautiful.

The rational and the relational reinforce each other...regardless of your belief system (atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, hedonist, etc).

Finally, the Bible clearly states that we are more than able to understand God's nature and will well enough to either (a) pursue a close relationship to Him through Christ and under His authority ("if you love me you will keep my commandments"), or (b) reject Him and pursue our own desires.

Bottom line: Attempts to ground knowledge in our Reason or our Intuition, rather than in a God who has revealed Himself, are doomed to fail. And, attempts to cram God into some kind of a box (e.g., rational or intuitive, immanent or transcendent) are also doomed to fail. Virtually every well-known theologian in the past 500 years has made one or more such attempts...which is why theology (the study of God) disappeared from Western culture and was replaced with, initially, the study of man, then with a rejection of the possibility of knowledge...but that's another story.

In the end, I am sympathetic with SK's reaction to the Age of Reason...however, I don't think his reaction reflects a Biblical understanding of either God or man. Rather, it reflects a human attempt to put God in a largely transcendent/mystical box that is far too small for a rational God.


Tuesday, October 26, 2010

In the beginning was the Image....

The older I get, the more profound John 1:1 becomes. Despite the hyper-modern skepticism about language's ability to communicate Truth (i.e., universal objective God-created), I'm continually reminded of just how profound language is...literally and as a metaphor.

But, until this past Sunday, I had never considered the following: would it be possible to (a) create a universe, and (b) create humans in God's image, without language?

I have some awareness of various materialist efforts to define demarcation criteria for what makes humans distinctive. The relatively recent resurgence of monism has made this kind of approach politically incorrect (note that we can't say false, much less False (appeal to reason) ...nor can we say unhelpful (appeal to pragmatism)...all we can say is that it's unpopular with those in power).

Regardless, those efforts often focused on language as a key criterion that might or might not separate humans from non-humans. They included well-publicized attempts to teach chimps to "speak"...whether or not this was successful depends on how you define speech.

I'm not a linguist, but my snap reaction on Sunday was to wonder:
1. Would it be possible to create laws of physics that would allow for the communication, storage, and processing of abstract concepts in the form of an Image (not symbols/language)?

2. And, if you could, would it be possible to also create an apparatus (in human form) that would be able to both (a) survive at a concrete level (e.g., walk, detect threats, etc), and (b) reason at an abstract level?

I suspect not, but I doubt there's any way to really explore this very deeply....unfortunate since it appears that information technology is beginning to explore the use of visual metaphors (think the iPhone GUI (or NUI)).

So, why bring this up? In part, it's because we live in a culture that is deeply in love with the Image. If Truth (or even truth) is not possible, then Meaning/Purpose/Telos is in serious trouble (at least for social creatures).

Images avoid these unpleasant discussions about the True, the Good, the Beautiful (well maybe not the last...can't quite erase every trace of being created in God's image). Images just are.

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a recent critique of this trend....from text to image, from reason to emotion, from complex depth to simplistic superficiality.

The reactionary rebels against what seems to be an assault on a core aspect of being human...our reason. The romantic revels in the constant swirling of emotive imagery and sound.

I suspect most of us relate to both perspectives. But, we're all probably more influenced by the dominant image-centric culture than we realize.

Which implies that we should be much more skeptical about imagery than we are about language...partly because of its unquestioned primacy, and partly because of the power of its emotive unreason.

In the beginning was the Image?....no, in the beginning was the Word. In, I suspect, more ways than one.