Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 01, 2006 04:11 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 01, 2006 04:11 PM
DiaBlogue<A>: Convergent Elocution
While Alan wonders whether or not I am finally
Reaching
Escape Velocity by Reviving
the Classics, I worry whether the yolk
may be on me after reading my friend Seth Godin's cautionary tale
about miscommunication:
I realized that every single time I used an analogy, he didn't "get it." Instead, he started talking about the example in the analogy instead of the concept I was trying to get across.
Despite -- or perhaps because -- we seem to be making some linear progress in these last few posts, I do worry whether we really are talking about the same thing. Thus, before I address Alan's very reasonable concerns, I'd like to double-check that we at least agree about where we're trying to go.
[Read more] for my attempt to more precisely frame the terms of our debate...
I realized that every single time I used an analogy, he didn't "get it." Instead, he started talking about the example in the analogy instead of the concept I was trying to get across.
Despite -- or perhaps because -- we seem to be making some linear progress in these last few posts, I do worry whether we really are talking about the same thing. Thus, before I address Alan's very reasonable concerns, I'd like to double-check that we at least agree about where we're trying to go.
[Read more] for my attempt to more precisely frame the terms of our debate...
Using the terms previously defined, I believe Alan and I have
reached provisional agreement that:
i. Both Classical and Relativistic Orthodoxy are
valid interpretations of historic Christian orthodoxy
ii. Classical Orthodoxy
is
demonstrably flawed relative to Alan's eight arguments
iii. Relativistic Orthodoxy might
possibly
avoid those same flaws
That is, while we may change our mind based on further information, all three of these statements appear plausible given our current understanding. So far, so good. However, Alan then raises three additional issues:
That is, while we may change our mind based on further information, all three of these statements appear plausible given our current understanding. So far, so good. However, Alan then raises three additional issues:
1. First, Ernie can hardly expect me
to evaluate his beliefs until he tells me what they are. He has begun to do
this, but not in sufficient detail for me to decide how my concerns might be
addressed. Answering more of the questions I posed in Psi-lent
Night would be one place to start.
2. In addition to addressing my
concerns about Classical Orthodoxy, Relativistic Orthodoxy should not raise
comparable new concerns.
3. Finally, Ernie needs to provide
some positive evidence for the truth of his beliefs beyond simply saying "if
this were true it would solve your
problems".
While I concede that all three are perfectly valid requests, the way he poses them made me realize that we've been operating under slightly different metrics of success. In particular, I had been assuming that Alan was implicitly trying to prove the following syllogism:
While I concede that all three are perfectly valid requests, the way he poses them made me realize that we've been operating under slightly different metrics of success. In particular, I had been assuming that Alan was implicitly trying to prove the following syllogism:
I. Meaningful Christianity makes a set of strict
assertions, which I've labeled Classical Orthodoxy
II. Classical Orthodoxy is demonstrably false,
due to both logical and empirical results
III. Therefore, Christianity is either untrue or
meaningless
Thus, as mentioned in Double-Check, if either:
Thus, as mentioned in Double-Check, if either:
a. I am not able to come up with a
definition of Christianity that simultaneously avoids his critique and is
compatible with orthodoxy
b. He can articulate presuppositions
that are at least as reasonable and comprehensive as mine, as measured against
our common
epistemic
Then I would have to admit defeat. That doesn't mean I'd agree he's right, but I would at least concede that his position is better justified than mine. Conversely, if I succeeded on both counts, he would be the one to concede.
Alas, I fear I buried this under a deluge of other posts, so I can't tell whether Alan actually accepted that wager or not. I suspect the latter, since according the "rules" I was playing by, all I need to do is show that there exists a theory that simultaneously i) qualifies as orthodox Christianity, and ii) addresses his stated concerns in order to invalidate his syllogism. Which -- while I haven't done so yet -- I seem to be close to accomplishing.
Unfortunately (at least for me :-), Alan apparently wants to hold me to a higher standard. Which is fine, but since I'm confused as to exactly what that standard is, I'm not quite sure how we're ever going to converge. So, let me try to define what I think is a reasonable "standard of proof" that I need to satisfy in order to "win" Round One. My task, as I see it, is to develop a coherent "theory of divinity" that:
Then I would have to admit defeat. That doesn't mean I'd agree he's right, but I would at least concede that his position is better justified than mine. Conversely, if I succeeded on both counts, he would be the one to concede.
Alas, I fear I buried this under a deluge of other posts, so I can't tell whether Alan actually accepted that wager or not. I suspect the latter, since according the "rules" I was playing by, all I need to do is show that there exists a theory that simultaneously i) qualifies as orthodox Christianity, and ii) addresses his stated concerns in order to invalidate his syllogism. Which -- while I haven't done so yet -- I seem to be close to accomplishing.
Unfortunately (at least for me :-), Alan apparently wants to hold me to a higher standard. Which is fine, but since I'm confused as to exactly what that standard is, I'm not quite sure how we're ever going to converge. So, let me try to define what I think is a reasonable "standard of proof" that I need to satisfy in order to "win" Round One. My task, as I see it, is to develop a coherent "theory of divinity" that:
A. Articulates a coherent understanding of
justice and the afterlife
B. Explains the historical successes -- and
failures -- of Christian communities to create social good
C. Elucidates an actionable hermeneutic for
interpreting the Bible that is consistent with historical and textual
evidence
D. Meaningfully relates the resurrection of
Christ with personal salvation
E. And despite all that, is still fully
consistent with historic Christian
orthodoxy
And thus, if I can achieve all that -- to our mutual satisfaction -- then I would argue I can fairly claim that my belief in Christianity is paradigmatically justified relative to everything we've discussed so far; and that your disbelief in Christianity is not.
Now, that wouldn't necessarily mean I am completely right, or that you are "fundamentally wrong." However, my impression is that the apparent failure of the Christianity you knew to address these concerns was a prime mover in your decision to abandon it. If so, then I would think a successful refutation of them would at least provide a meaningful convergence point.
To be sure, there will always be more concerns. But, do you know any theory that doesn't have unanswered questions? Thus, if I can at least answer the questions you've raised so far about the consistency and explanatory power of my worldview, would you be willing to concede that achievement, and first submit your own belief system to that same level of rigorous examination before raising new issues?
As far as the question of whether I actually "believe" my theory -- that isn't quite as simple as it sounds. The short answer is that I believe it is "close" to the truth, but (going back to Newton) I can't really say how or where it breaks down outside the range where I've already validated it. However, given that our dataset is 2,000 years of Christian history, and we've covered epistemology, ethics, ontology, sociology, and psychology along the way, I would argue devising a coherent theory within those constraints is good enough for our purposes.
If it isn't, I'm not sure what would be. Alan?
And thus, if I can achieve all that -- to our mutual satisfaction -- then I would argue I can fairly claim that my belief in Christianity is paradigmatically justified relative to everything we've discussed so far; and that your disbelief in Christianity is not.
Now, that wouldn't necessarily mean I am completely right, or that you are "fundamentally wrong." However, my impression is that the apparent failure of the Christianity you knew to address these concerns was a prime mover in your decision to abandon it. If so, then I would think a successful refutation of them would at least provide a meaningful convergence point.
To be sure, there will always be more concerns. But, do you know any theory that doesn't have unanswered questions? Thus, if I can at least answer the questions you've raised so far about the consistency and explanatory power of my worldview, would you be willing to concede that achievement, and first submit your own belief system to that same level of rigorous examination before raising new issues?
As far as the question of whether I actually "believe" my theory -- that isn't quite as simple as it sounds. The short answer is that I believe it is "close" to the truth, but (going back to Newton) I can't really say how or where it breaks down outside the range where I've already validated it. However, given that our dataset is 2,000 years of Christian history, and we've covered epistemology, ethics, ontology, sociology, and psychology along the way, I would argue devising a coherent theory within those constraints is good enough for our purposes.
If it isn't, I'm not sure what would be. Alan?
Posted: Sat - May 13, 2006 at 06:07 PM