Great work man! You have so much to offer, and I look forward to what you'll share. Your point about reason reminded me of an argument Leslie Newbigin makes about the the subjectivity of reason - that whether an idea is reasonable or not is a culturally attuned judgement. Naturalism has seemed quite reasonable and dependable in the Western world since the Enlightenment, but only if we close our eyes to the questions it fails to answer - a 'small' one being, "Where does our insistence of human rights come from if what is empirically testable is all there is to appeal to?".
There is a flaw in your equation: Faith in the accumulation of testable “precepts about the world [and known universe],” many pre-dating the Christian era, is not equivalent to faith in Christian-centric “beliefs.” After all, Christianity’s survival and its widespread popularity is the consequence of an astute populist pagan emperor (Constantine) opting to prolong his time in office via his Edict of Milan that decriminalized Christian worship and beliefs. The situation in the Roman Empire in AD 313 is not unlike that in America today: Mr. Trump, a faithless demagogue, has vociferously espoused fundamentalist religious leanings held by the roughly 80 million evangelicals in the US. And in November he garnered 74,222,593 votes in a “rigged election.”
Right observation to notice various types of belief. For surely there is rational belief, relational belief, existential belief, etc. In order to sustain any of these types of belief, they must all presuppose particular planks to validate their plausibility (empirical belief assumes the inherent order of the natural world, relational belief assumes the reliability of human decisions, etc). To recognize this should not be to invalidate any particular type of belief per se, but rather to fulfill them all (they each have a place in undergirding our lives and decisions). You rightly appeal to historical belief to talk about Christianity - though I would posit Constantine is 300 years after the watershed event, namely the embodying of God in a person. Historical belief, then in that very instance, intersects with relational and rational belief (and myriad others) in God Himself, when He became a human, Jesus. This well attested historical event lauded not merely by western civilization, but countless societies across the globe, is what Christianity has always pointed to for its sustenance and propagation. If something that seismic happened, wouldn't it make sense to rearrange my finite perspective of everything around that?
Continuing in the historical mode, I agree that there are a number incidents that one might characterize as “seismic” or “watershed” events. And some of those have spawned what I think you call “relational beliefs.” Perhaps more to the point of our exchange, some of those events have launched “belief systems”—“a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code” (according to Google). Such events might include, for example, the founding of Judaism, dating from ~1800 BCE with ~18 million adherents today, Siddhārtha Gautama’s Buddhism ~450 BCE with ~0.5 billion, Jesus’ Christianity ~30 CE with ~2.4 billion, Muhammad’s Islam ~600 CE with ~1.8 billion, Joseph Smith’s Mormonism ~ 1825 CE with ~20 million, etc. Aware of historical tabulations of such seismic events, it doesn’t make sense to me “to rearrange my finite perspective of everything around [any single one of those belief systems].” I prefer to live unconstrained by dogma, cherry-picking from some of the principles underlying those belief systems.
Awesome first post! I've always thought you were smart and wise and have a lot of insight to offer. Excited for more :)
Great work man! You have so much to offer, and I look forward to what you'll share. Your point about reason reminded me of an argument Leslie Newbigin makes about the the subjectivity of reason - that whether an idea is reasonable or not is a culturally attuned judgement. Naturalism has seemed quite reasonable and dependable in the Western world since the Enlightenment, but only if we close our eyes to the questions it fails to answer - a 'small' one being, "Where does our insistence of human rights come from if what is empirically testable is all there is to appeal to?".
Very well written. These words dive into the unconscious much like psychoanalysis.
Never forget, the human mind is an was created, understanding the creator will be impossible. Degrees to understanding is wisdom given by God...
As always my friend, your writing is just so incredibly expressive and vivid. Whatever you will be writing, I will be reading
Awesome! Such a worthy pursuit!
Looking forward to reading more.
Great start, interested to read this year!
Thank you for this!
There is a flaw in your equation: Faith in the accumulation of testable “precepts about the world [and known universe],” many pre-dating the Christian era, is not equivalent to faith in Christian-centric “beliefs.” After all, Christianity’s survival and its widespread popularity is the consequence of an astute populist pagan emperor (Constantine) opting to prolong his time in office via his Edict of Milan that decriminalized Christian worship and beliefs. The situation in the Roman Empire in AD 313 is not unlike that in America today: Mr. Trump, a faithless demagogue, has vociferously espoused fundamentalist religious leanings held by the roughly 80 million evangelicals in the US. And in November he garnered 74,222,593 votes in a “rigged election.”
Love, Your Dad.
Right observation to notice various types of belief. For surely there is rational belief, relational belief, existential belief, etc. In order to sustain any of these types of belief, they must all presuppose particular planks to validate their plausibility (empirical belief assumes the inherent order of the natural world, relational belief assumes the reliability of human decisions, etc). To recognize this should not be to invalidate any particular type of belief per se, but rather to fulfill them all (they each have a place in undergirding our lives and decisions). You rightly appeal to historical belief to talk about Christianity - though I would posit Constantine is 300 years after the watershed event, namely the embodying of God in a person. Historical belief, then in that very instance, intersects with relational and rational belief (and myriad others) in God Himself, when He became a human, Jesus. This well attested historical event lauded not merely by western civilization, but countless societies across the globe, is what Christianity has always pointed to for its sustenance and propagation. If something that seismic happened, wouldn't it make sense to rearrange my finite perspective of everything around that?
Continuing in the historical mode, I agree that there are a number incidents that one might characterize as “seismic” or “watershed” events. And some of those have spawned what I think you call “relational beliefs.” Perhaps more to the point of our exchange, some of those events have launched “belief systems”—“a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code” (according to Google). Such events might include, for example, the founding of Judaism, dating from ~1800 BCE with ~18 million adherents today, Siddhārtha Gautama’s Buddhism ~450 BCE with ~0.5 billion, Jesus’ Christianity ~30 CE with ~2.4 billion, Muhammad’s Islam ~600 CE with ~1.8 billion, Joseph Smith’s Mormonism ~ 1825 CE with ~20 million, etc. Aware of historical tabulations of such seismic events, it doesn’t make sense to me “to rearrange my finite perspective of everything around [any single one of those belief systems].” I prefer to live unconstrained by dogma, cherry-picking from some of the principles underlying those belief systems.
Great post
Love it, Casey! Excited to walk into 2021 with your devotionals!
So great, I look forward to the rest!