Many have tried to define faith on belief systems, which has done nothing for bringing unity. Others have tried to define unity on practice, or behavior, but this attempt also does not affirm diversity. So, how are we to define and affirm a unity in diversity? Faith.
Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.
Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy and Faith
I find that defining religion on theology or practice still becomes a hinderance to understanding faith. Faith, as I have said before is undefined, by belief, or practice, as far as objectively. Faith is personal commitment to value. Faith can be aligned in one's life ot a certain religion, but does not have to be. I hope that those who place all their hopes on definitions OR behavior will undstand that both are limited when it comes to judging for the outside, what comes from faith.
Why do I say that faith is not to be or can not be judged? Because, besides faith being a personal conviction and commitment, it's very expression is unique. Faith doesn' t necessarily conform to a tradition or another person's definition of faith. Faith just is. It is being itself and what I do with that being. Sometimes people are not practicing their faith, because they are dealing with issues that have hindered healthy faith. Distance to communities of faith or to orhtopraxy can be healthy, if they hide unhealthy dependency. Healthy faith is a free expression of choice. It must be voluntary, otherwise, faith is being defined by someone or something other than the individual who must possess it.
Why do I say that faith is not to be or can not be judged? Because, besides faith being a personal conviction and commitment, it's very expression is unique. Faith doesn' t necessarily conform to a tradition or another person's definition of faith. Faith just is. It is being itself and what I do with that being. Sometimes people are not practicing their faith, because they are dealing with issues that have hindered healthy faith. Distance to communities of faith or to orhtopraxy can be healthy, if they hide unhealthy dependency. Healthy faith is a free expression of choice. It must be voluntary, otherwise, faith is being defined by someone or something other than the individual who must possess it.
Science and Religion, a Dichotomy?
Science is a journey of exploration, while religion is defined and confined. Science is open ended, where religion is closed and contained. Science reveals "god", where religion defines god!
Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?
C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".
Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?
Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?
I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?
Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.
Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?
C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".
Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?
Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?
I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?
Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Views of Truth continued in Postmodernity
Last night I wrote about three different understandings of truth. Of course this does not exhaust the "theories" concerning truth. Some would not root truth in philosophical terms and ways, but would understand truth in the postmodern sense, as a way of life, in cultural terms. This understanding of truth is a linguistic approach, where words have meanings and is text and culturally bound.
But, last night I suggested three ways of understanding that I think follow historical development of philosophical stances toward truth. The first, correspondence was useful in understand the Middle Ages. The Church, the text and the people represented truth, as they corresponded to a transcentdent realm. This view is held in evangelical and consevative circles where Church and/or text, point back to God.
The second view of truth is the coherent view, which is a scientific understanding. The Modern Age where critical inquiry was useful in determining what was real according to scientific investigation. Evidence found in archeological science supported historical science. These disciplines brought a more comprehensive view of ancient history and culture, which undermined the Church's claims on truth. Just recently the James ossuary which supported the historical Jesus was viewed as fradulant. Other findings show that Christian faith is not spcecial revelation, but one of many attempts by man to understand the transcentdent. The Bible, as understood by conservatives is a text of coherency, but textual criticism shows that Scripture reveals diverse views, peoples, and languages. The text has no coherent meaning, which leaves the believer in the quandary of questions concerning faith.
Pragmatism is the postmodern view, where there is no universal, but only individual understandings. These understandings are cultural understandings and identification factors for the individual. Because of the diversity and fragmentation to universal truth claims, which is highly problematic for conservatives, there has been an attempt to build some understanding of universal truth. Some have fallen back on the text, and "replacement theory", where the Church replaces Israel, as the "covenant people of God". This view understands the Church as mandated to herald the "Kingdom of God" on earth. Questions arise in ethics, where it concerns diversity issues in a modern society. Others, in relying on the text, limit their understanding to the early Church as a way to understand truth. Not understanding fully the early Church's context, these believers try to create "communities of faith". This is the emergent movement. Others have fallen back on theological rendering of the Trinity.
All of these attempts to create a transcendental and universal realm are short-sighted. Whether one creates an "Old Testament People of God" implementing God's Kingdom upon others, like Islam; creating local communities of faith, as the early Church; or create identification factors, such as Trinitarian attempts, all have ethical problems in bringing about an understanding unity in diversity. Postmodernity has attempted to bring about a "new identity" through these means of creating a unified identity, because the Church has an identification crisis.
Where does the Church go from here, as pragmatism is a means to accomplish things on earth, while having no need for the transcendent. Is the transcdent necessary? Some believe, not, as just as long as needs are met in the present, then it doesn't matter about God, the afterlife, or the Church. What do you think? Do you think that the transcendent is necessary? Is the church and if so, what for?
But, last night I suggested three ways of understanding that I think follow historical development of philosophical stances toward truth. The first, correspondence was useful in understand the Middle Ages. The Church, the text and the people represented truth, as they corresponded to a transcentdent realm. This view is held in evangelical and consevative circles where Church and/or text, point back to God.
The second view of truth is the coherent view, which is a scientific understanding. The Modern Age where critical inquiry was useful in determining what was real according to scientific investigation. Evidence found in archeological science supported historical science. These disciplines brought a more comprehensive view of ancient history and culture, which undermined the Church's claims on truth. Just recently the James ossuary which supported the historical Jesus was viewed as fradulant. Other findings show that Christian faith is not spcecial revelation, but one of many attempts by man to understand the transcentdent. The Bible, as understood by conservatives is a text of coherency, but textual criticism shows that Scripture reveals diverse views, peoples, and languages. The text has no coherent meaning, which leaves the believer in the quandary of questions concerning faith.
Pragmatism is the postmodern view, where there is no universal, but only individual understandings. These understandings are cultural understandings and identification factors for the individual. Because of the diversity and fragmentation to universal truth claims, which is highly problematic for conservatives, there has been an attempt to build some understanding of universal truth. Some have fallen back on the text, and "replacement theory", where the Church replaces Israel, as the "covenant people of God". This view understands the Church as mandated to herald the "Kingdom of God" on earth. Questions arise in ethics, where it concerns diversity issues in a modern society. Others, in relying on the text, limit their understanding to the early Church as a way to understand truth. Not understanding fully the early Church's context, these believers try to create "communities of faith". This is the emergent movement. Others have fallen back on theological rendering of the Trinity.
All of these attempts to create a transcendental and universal realm are short-sighted. Whether one creates an "Old Testament People of God" implementing God's Kingdom upon others, like Islam; creating local communities of faith, as the early Church; or create identification factors, such as Trinitarian attempts, all have ethical problems in bringing about an understanding unity in diversity. Postmodernity has attempted to bring about a "new identity" through these means of creating a unified identity, because the Church has an identification crisis.
Where does the Church go from here, as pragmatism is a means to accomplish things on earth, while having no need for the transcendent. Is the transcdent necessary? Some believe, not, as just as long as needs are met in the present, then it doesn't matter about God, the afterlife, or the Church. What do you think? Do you think that the transcendent is necessary? Is the church and if so, what for?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Views of Truth
There are three ways of understanding "truth" or reality; correspondence, coherent and pragmatic. These understanding relate to the Quadralateral in different ways.'
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Worldviews, Science, and Roles
I have been thinking a lot in the last few years about my faith. What is the role and function of the Church, the State, and the individual. I had understood my faith to be about a separation between Church and State, as this left freedom for the individual's expression and commitment. I think this was what our Founding Fathers meant to do, so that there would be no conflict of interest when it concerns the realm of politics. This is a complentarity view.
From what I can gather, the complentarirty view sees science, and faith as distinct spheres. This view to be consistent would also view roles and functions as distinct. This view would lend itself to a two level view of leadership. The sacred realm is to be led by ministers, while the secular realm would be for "worldly" leaders. Likewise, in the home there would be distinct roles and functions for the male and female. The problem becomes one of hierarchy, importance, and prejuidice in understanding life in all its diversity. In the philosophical realm, this view holds faith and reason in two distinct areas of understanding. And purpose is found within the sacred realm where "god" determines what is to be done or one submits to what is understood to be "god's will". Science is a means to an end. This view would be more conservative in traditional terms.
On the other hand, a more liberal view would lend itself to a integrated view. Faith is not anti-thetical to reason, nor is faith anti-thetical to politics. Faith contains reason, as faith encompasses values that are reasoned from ethical commitments. Character is viewed as the epitome of truth claims. This is where the life lived is a commitment to values held. Purpose is made, not found by the individual. Life is lived under social contract understanding. And science is the way of understanding more about life. Science is an end itself. Reason is embraced as a means, but should not be the end.
Revelation in the former view is outside of the individual, in moral models, texts, relgious understandings, or groups, where the later would view revelation as the individual themself. The individual who holds to the former view does not necessarily hold a lower view or development of character, if, that is, the character has come to resolve the values of revelation as "other' and the trascendent as a separate realm. It is a matter of perception of reality, life, personal development, identification, value, and commitment.
From what I can gather, the complentarirty view sees science, and faith as distinct spheres. This view to be consistent would also view roles and functions as distinct. This view would lend itself to a two level view of leadership. The sacred realm is to be led by ministers, while the secular realm would be for "worldly" leaders. Likewise, in the home there would be distinct roles and functions for the male and female. The problem becomes one of hierarchy, importance, and prejuidice in understanding life in all its diversity. In the philosophical realm, this view holds faith and reason in two distinct areas of understanding. And purpose is found within the sacred realm where "god" determines what is to be done or one submits to what is understood to be "god's will". Science is a means to an end. This view would be more conservative in traditional terms.
On the other hand, a more liberal view would lend itself to a integrated view. Faith is not anti-thetical to reason, nor is faith anti-thetical to politics. Faith contains reason, as faith encompasses values that are reasoned from ethical commitments. Character is viewed as the epitome of truth claims. This is where the life lived is a commitment to values held. Purpose is made, not found by the individual. Life is lived under social contract understanding. And science is the way of understanding more about life. Science is an end itself. Reason is embraced as a means, but should not be the end.
Revelation in the former view is outside of the individual, in moral models, texts, relgious understandings, or groups, where the later would view revelation as the individual themself. The individual who holds to the former view does not necessarily hold a lower view or development of character, if, that is, the character has come to resolve the values of revelation as "other' and the trascendent as a separate realm. It is a matter of perception of reality, life, personal development, identification, value, and commitment.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Obama and His Cabinet
I was so pleased to hear several comments by president elect Obama. He spoke of having strong personalities on his team and open ended debate, with his decision concluding the discussion!!! I think this is good leadership. He has chosen to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense to provide continuity during two ongoing wars. He is also going to appoint the U.N. ambassador to a Cabinet position, as Clinton did during his presidency. In my opinion, the things he has envisioned and spoken about are promising...
He is open to appoint people in position across party lines. He called for unity of national identity. He is open to others who are strongly opinionated about issues. I find this promising in that he doesn't feel threatened by those who have strong opinions, but at the same time, recognizes that ultimately, he will make the decision. To me, this means a strong sense of who he is and what he believes. He has the courage to take responsibility for the decision he will make, as he used "the buck stops here".
He and his cabinet have many challenges ahead of them. I wish that we (my husband and I) were closer to the top to feel a part of these changes. The auto-makers will again approach Congress about bailing out the auto industry. Many have already taken early retirement, but those who are under the age of 65 will find it hard to manage healthcare costs and will not be eligible for Medicare. Some may loose their pensions. This is definately an important history making time.
We need to applaud these ventures into new avenues of making a difference in the world at large. I find this heartening for our values of life and liberty. May we all be grateful for living in this great country and understand that we are much better off in many ways than other parts of the world. But, at the same time let us be understanding of what needs to be addressed by our country, as it concerns other countries. I think our president elect has a "world awareness" and will bring a new "hope" for all of us. At least, this is my hope.
He is open to appoint people in position across party lines. He called for unity of national identity. He is open to others who are strongly opinionated about issues. I find this promising in that he doesn't feel threatened by those who have strong opinions, but at the same time, recognizes that ultimately, he will make the decision. To me, this means a strong sense of who he is and what he believes. He has the courage to take responsibility for the decision he will make, as he used "the buck stops here".
He and his cabinet have many challenges ahead of them. I wish that we (my husband and I) were closer to the top to feel a part of these changes. The auto-makers will again approach Congress about bailing out the auto industry. Many have already taken early retirement, but those who are under the age of 65 will find it hard to manage healthcare costs and will not be eligible for Medicare. Some may loose their pensions. This is definately an important history making time.
We need to applaud these ventures into new avenues of making a difference in the world at large. I find this heartening for our values of life and liberty. May we all be grateful for living in this great country and understand that we are much better off in many ways than other parts of the world. But, at the same time let us be understanding of what needs to be addressed by our country, as it concerns other countries. I think our president elect has a "world awareness" and will bring a new "hope" for all of us. At least, this is my hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
