It"s All About Theories and the "Mind"...

I think how one views life and all that is, is really about theories, and how one's mind engages theories and experiences.......

Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.

I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.

How Do You Understand?

Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.

Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?

Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".

But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.

The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.

The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.

The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).

So, how do you understand the world?

"Specialialness" and Divine Revelation

All fundamentalists and many evangelicas believe that they have "special revelation". These believe that Scripture reveals "God's plan" and "God's way". These people remain within the "system" of biblical revelation to "defend" their positions. They, for the most part, fear other areas of knowledge, because "special revelation" has to be "above" average, everyday knowledge. Their reading of Scripture and "revelations" are sanctioned due to their belief in the Holy Spirit. No one can convince these believers otherwise, as they have "an in-road to God".

There is something highly wrong and dangerous with such a view. While the Church has maintained it's narrative of Jesus, Christ and Church, those that adhere to this narrative must also submit to Church authority.

Church authority nor is any authority immune to "use" their sense of "entitlement" to further their own agenda and goals. And this is why no organization or people should be above our nation's laws.

Special priviledge is not the "American Way", no matter what Scripture may deem "right"! Slavery was outlawed and patronage is dubious when it comes to our American ideals, as all are equal under the law.

Theology and Philosophy?

Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.

While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.

Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".

Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.

Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.

Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?

Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.

Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?

Science and Theology and the Human

Some have said that science and theology are separate entities that have different tasks and should not seek to be intergrated. I would disagree.

Although both science and theology have value to man's existence, one is useful for pragmatic reasons, while the other is not, necessarily.

Science is investigative, and is based on "real world" understandings of life, while theology is no less investigative, but is not usually based on the 'real world" but the transcendental world. There is no proof of God, as in his transcendetal existence cannot be observed or evaluated. All we can observe is the world of experience in the physical realm, which is about man and his environment.

Some would understand this endeavor as an important undertaking, as it connects the transcendental to the real, which would bring about a reasoned faith. Gnosticism has bee the bane of culture, as it disconnects faith from reason altogether. Faith alone distorts purpose, and hinders human flourishing, because it separates reality from faith. These faith understandings are not believable by those who value science and the "real world". How can the interface of science and theology "work" to bring about a 'better world"?

Man and his environment intersects many disciplines in psychology and sociology and anthropology and political theory. These are integrations of "sides" of the Quadralateral.

Culture contains the religion, traditions and political realms of understanding a man in his experience/environment. How does one understand all men (universal) within their context (particularity)? All men have reason, but not all men have the same experience(s) even within the same culture. The complexity of understanding man in "God's image" is a huge undertaking. And I'm not sure that man can never be understood completely, in universal terms, as there will always be the particularity of the individual and so many factors go into that mix that it is improbale that there will ever be consensus. But, then, this is what research is about, isn't it?

Therefore, science is mandantory in theological endeavor, as theology is about man, as much as it is about God. There is no absolute universal because each man as an individual cannot be understood from afar.

Limitations

Yesterday, while interacting with someone on another blog, it was pointed out that we have limitations. While I have never doubted that all of us do have limitations, what do these limitations mean?

The psychologist would say that we have limitations of gifting, while the anthropologist would say that our limitation is context. The lawyer would understand the limitation of law, while the politician doesn't grasp any limitation whatsoever!

Individuals are born with certain gifts in understanding, intellectual capacity, and interests. These giftings are only limited by a lack of development.

The anthropologist would understand that our cultural values and understanding of life vis a vis religion will be different. The individual is limited within his scope of context, but this limitation can be overcome. A enlarged world can happen through education, exposure to other cultures, etc.

The rule of law is an important value in the West. It has made our country great because it is the basis of our governing and government. The Law defines what is 'right and wrong" behavior in relationships, whether it be in business transactions, divorce settlements, or settlement of estates. Most of our laws are based on economic boundaries that define what is considered justice.

But, what happens in countries that do not value law? Terrorists or those whose cultures do not allow equality under law, as their cultural values differ from ours, whether through religious prejuidice, or a "saving face" norm, these people cannot be trusted in the same way as Western cultures. How are we to do business withe these cultures? If one believes that only the "in group" is privy for special rights or priviledge because others are infidels, or whether the culture does not allow the acknowledgment of wrong, because of the "loss of face"....These are challenging in our global climate of economic exchange...

The politician, though, is only interested in getting the job, getting elected, appealing to the masses, and being ambiguous. Ambuguity is an important attribute for a politician for then, people can project what they value the most in a form of rhetoric that is broad enough for their view to "fit". The astute politician is a "man for all people", as he represents many and various views. He knows how to manipulate the press and the people for his own advantage, so that he can maintain his public office. Honesty would be a refreshing change in the public square.

Limitations are what we place upon our own life in a free society, either through our own "smallness", or allowing another his overindulgent appetite for what we have. Limitations then, become a matter of "right relationship", where another needs to recognize what has happened and make amends. Justice is about right relationship and right relationship is about law. And law is what makes for peace.

New Information on Happiness and How Life and Liberty Intersect

Today, in my e-mail, it was reported in The Happiness Journal that doing volunteer work, alturistic service, etc. made children happier than organized religion, such as prayer, attending church, etc.. Although the e-mail was not detailed, I wondered how they assessed their "subjects". And I wondered if this was the wisdom of the "kingdom of God" that Jesus spoke about...

Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.

The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?

Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.

On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?

And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.

Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?

All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?

Theology, Science and the Disciplines

Science gifts us with "ordered" understandings, which our Founding Fathers understood during the Enlightenment. But, today's science challenges most of us in coming to terms with "order", as science reveals a "disordered structure", because of our limited capacity to understand all deminsions of reality. In past posts, I have written about how history has developed around different understandings of "truth". Today's understanding is no less of a challenge, as there have been many claims in how to reconcile science and religion.

While science has challenged the Church's understanding of itself, it is imperative in today's climate that the Church define itself in a universal, but grounded framework. The grounding has to be understood within all the discipline's scientific understandings, as otherwise, theology becomes disconnected to the "real" world of politics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, social sciences, history, and the natural sciences. But, theology must not be limited to one aspect of understanding "reality", as this would diminish the fullest understanding. The Quadralateral is a good place to direct the Academy's focus.

In the Classical "days", theology was the "queen of the sciences", where all the disciplines point back to "God" as understood as Creator. God was the epitome of understanding and wisdom. Science was useful as a means of knowing and understanding God. So, in today's Christian colleges, there is a call, a fervent call of challenge to discern the times and bring about a reformulation of theological understanding....to give a reason to believe.