1
Clearly (for those who assent to its
principles), postmodernism has put paid to the idea that there is a
universal foundation and language of reason which we may all share and by which public ideas ought to be measured.
-------
yes - I tend to think so (located 'assented' perspective). However it was not in this sense that I was talking. There are several mathematicians and 'logicians' that have demonstrated that 'if-then'
logic is severely limited. In my own experience I am affected more by
non-reasoning/ or slightly reasoning language and thoughts - than by
a well constructed argument. A bit more Jazz, and maybe some liturgical dance for example (how do you signify a tongue in a cheek?), and a bit less proposition.
2
Yet I think that there is another possible understanding of the phrase which is still (IMO) valid, and that is the sense in which faith must be
reasonable to me personally, by being workably consonant with the rest of my network of beliefs and worldview. To put it another way, *my* faith ought not to cause cognitive dissonance for *me*.
--------
OK - whilst I take your point about a slightly different emphasis on the word 'reasonable', I actually believe that '*my* faith !should often! cause cognitive dissonance for *me*.' This revolves around my point concerning the God-bit of faith. I'm with those transendent-God-supporters - looking for a holy/wholly other God.
3 The point I wish to make is that the saying was about 'faith', not God. And 'faith' being at least to some extent a human process can be subject to human constraints that God may not be - and I would suggest that 'reasonableness' is one of them. -------- Which is the point at which I felt compelled to respond. In my original mail I wrote:
>This of course doesn't mean faith may not be "reasonable" as >there is a wad of humanity tied in with faith...
(which oddly enough you didn't copy into your response to me).
I intended, though I may have failed to communicate, to make just the point you are making here. I left it as a 'may not' rather than as a 'would suggest' because I am not sure either way. Nevertheless it would seem that there is some shared ground afterall...
God may be reasonable - God needn't neccessarily be reasonable (often isn't in the OT)
Faith may need to contain a fair amount of reason to be faith - It may
also need a fair amount of "cognitive dissonance".
My understanding of God often makes sense and often doesn't. I try applying Ockhams razor to my faith and miss - its a slippery blighter.
Niall
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Qualifications for ministry. Was: Christians and Light Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:53:09 +1100 From: Lindsay Cullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Insights List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Despite Niall's critique, I think that there may be life in the old saw yet (ie. "faith must be reasonable"). Clearly (for those who assent to its principles), postmodernism has put paid to the idea that there is a universal foundation and language of reason which we may all share and by which public ideas ought to be measured. The use of the term 'discourse' suggests that it is perhaps this usage which Niall has in mind in his criticism.
Yet I think that there is another possible understanding of the phrase which is still (IMO) valid, and that is the sense in which faith must be reasonable to me personally, by being workably consonant with the rest of my network of beliefs and worldview. To put it another way, *my* faith ought not to cause cognitive dissonance for *me*. Tellingly, it is this personal application which Allan actually evinces in the rest of his message, referring to the division he felt personally between what he felt he was being taught in SS and what he felt his brain was telling him. ISTM that reasonableness in this sense is indeed necessary to human thought, and thus to faith.
Which brings me to my last comment. Niall comments that there is no reason why God must be reasonable. I suspect that if reason is seen as suggested above as similar in tenor to self-consistency, that there *is* an implicit reason why God must be 'reasonable', but for the sake of argument, let us put that aside. The point I wish to make is that the saying was about 'faith', not God. And 'faith' being at least to some extent a human process can be subject to human constraints that God may not be - and I would suggest that 'reasonableness' is one of them.
Cheers Linz
Psssst! Did you hear that Niall McKay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said this:
I don't believe there is any implicit reason why God must be "reasonable" as "reason" whilst helpful (perhaps even neccessary) to us humans is only one discourse amongst many...
Windows 2000 = Mac 1984! -- Rev. Lindsay Cullen Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] An old(!) website... www.lindsaycullen.com
------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------
.
-- Niall McKay Bathurst City Uniting Church 140 William Street Bathurst NSW 2795 Office Phone: 02 63321197
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prophetic words
"we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up"
Michael Moore
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
