The only thing that I didn't feel entirely comfortable with in the membership form was that the church said it was committed to "Stand firm on the Bible as our primary source of God in Christ and by which all other sources such as reason, tradition and intuition shall be judged"
I straight away thought of Mark 16:9-20
(9) Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. (10) She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. (11) But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. (12) After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. (13) And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. (14) Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. (15) And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. (16) The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. (17) And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; (18) they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." (19) So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. (20) And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it.
Intuition tells me that picking up snakes and drinking poison doesn't feel right I'm going to die if I pick up snakes. Reason tells me that scholars do not accept this last section of Mark as written by the original author and that it's a much later addition. Tradition tells me that apart from a handful of people in the Southern states of America, no one has ever given any credence to this part of Mark.
For me the problem with the Bible vs reason, tradition and intuition is that I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy. The Bible maybe my primary source but it is reason, tradition and intuition that are the tools I use to read and interpret it.
10 comments:
Yeah! Right on brother!
"The Bible maybe my primary source but it is reason, tradition and intuition that are the tools I use to read and interpret it."
Chris,
The problem with using the word "reason" is that it has several denotations and even more connotations. In lay speak, reason is simply the cause or justification for something (event, action, etc.). "Reason" can really be anything in that case (i.e. the reason I play ball is because it is fun; the reason I believe in x is because of y, where "y" can be essentially anything).
Philosophically speaking, however, this is not "reason." Reason is the ability to use the rules of logic, the strict principles of validity, in order to come to these justifications. While most people do not actually know these rules of validity, we employ them on a daily basis (i.e. sense of duty).
Explicit in the philosophical definition of reason is that "Reason" REQUIRES a premise of an argument in support of a belief. When you state that the Bible is your primary source, you have already negated reason because you have no premise. You have started with an unsubstantiated presupposition and worked backwards. If you wanted to honestly be able to say that reason supports your belief system, then you must first premise the argument that the Bible is your authority with a "reason." In lay terms, why is the Bible your prime source? What justification can you offer that it should be accepted as an authority on any subject?
Regards.
"The Bible maybe my primary source but it is reason, tradition and intuition that are the tools I use to read and interpret it."
Hi John,
It looks to me like you've read something into Chris' post that really isn't addressed, unless you've got another post of his in mind that I haven't read.
Chris' point seems to be that he is uncomfortable with the statement of his church because it implies that if reason is in conflict with what the Bible says, then the Bible trumps reason, not the other way round.
He then proceeds to affirm that he values reason, tradition, and intuition as the very means by which he accesses the Bible.
He finishes with "Bible vs reason, tradition and intuition is [...] is somewhat of a false dichotomy".
I'll refrain from trying to interpret exactly what that means.
I can't see that Chris is claiming to be a rationalist, or claiming that he follows the Bible because it rests on a premise first established by reason. He values reason, tradition, intuition and the Bible.
If I may, I've found it common for rationalists to want to have strict, sharp definitions for words so that they can engage in scientific discussion consisting of truths and falsehoods, provens and unprovens, and leading to knowables and unknowables. But this discourse, the rationalist discourse, is not the only discourse, not the only means of engaging with reality. I personally find it a powerful tool, but with severe limitations. It can't deal with anything that does not fit into strictly defined terms, like hope, friendship, progress, significance, culture, meaning, and so on. The closest it gets to grappling with these is by reducing them into component parts and analysing them. But by then, the toy has been broken, and the thing now analysed is something different to what was meant in the original definition. More often than not, reason, insistent on the polarity of knowable and unknowable, plonks stuff into the unknowable category, if not the illusory category. Why love? Why follow conscience? Reason is a very poor tool for accessing these questions. It simply doesn't have the categories or processes to make sense of the types of meanings that do not fit into propositional formulations of truth.
Words don't have to have strict meanings. There is truth in poetry, in nature, in relationships, in intuition. There can be AND this AND that, some of this, some of that. Maybe this, maybe that. Actions taken without reason at all, yet which we consider wise, (and I avoid destroying wisdom with reductionalist reason). All around us things are happening that we cannot possibly hope to exhaustively access with proofs and substantiated premises. Our whole existence is an unsubstantiated premise - just go ask Descartes. You think - but why do you think? Reason will say this is unknowable, OR that it's all just neurons firing (reductionalist again, the toy broken, since neurons firing is hardly a satisfying description for consciousness). And why do the neurons fire? Why is the universe the way it is?
If you want to be a pure rationalist (and I'm not saying that you do - I don't know you) then so much becomes unknowable that there is no substantiated reason to do anything except to eat, drink, be merry, AND assuage one's conscience (guilty feelings are unpleasant) because tomorrow we die and then who knows what? It is for this reason that I am not a rationalist, because I perceive there to be great limitations to reason, and am just as annoyed by the confidence of rationalists as I am the confidence of Christians (ye s I am one and yes I do annoy myself).
I personally think philosophical reason should temper other discourses, other ways of approaching true/false important/unimportant meaningful/meaningless, and all the shades of greys inbetween. Reason should be a (not the) anchor.
Chris may or may not be of a like mind. You may or may not.
But in any case you can't bring what appears to be a pure rationalist discourse to bear on an article that itself claims to value intuition, tradition, and reason, and the Bible. I personally see no glaring contradiction here. I would speak in similar terms to Chris. For me there is a convergence of tools, an intuitive convergence.
Plenty of bumps in the convergence by all means, but the day I cast all my dice onto reason is the day I decide to have a nice long lay down, and I mean very long!
Amicably!
Steve Collis
Hey John and Steve, Thanks for the comments. I'll post a response soon. Life's a bit busy right now :).
Why love? Why follow conscience? Reason is a very poor tool for accessing these questions. It simply doesn't have the categories or processes to make sense of the types of meanings that do not fit into propositional formulations of truth.
Reason may be a poor tool for addressing these questions, though that may simply indicate that you would not find its conclusions satisfactory. (Depending upon what you mean by "reason," of course. If you're equating "reason" with "science," then there do exist explanations for love (neurochemical, psychological, evolutionary) and conscience.) What "reason" is there to believe, though, that there are other tools (e.g. religion) more apt to the task?
Words don't have to have strict meanings. There is truth in poetry, in nature, in relationships, in intuition.
Really? What kind of truth? How do we know that it's true? How can others be convinced of its truth?
I think the notion that reason is a source of truth (i.e. about the universe) is mistaken. (And I can't say I'm aware of anyone who argues to the contrary, which is why I suspect it might be something of a strawman when applied to those who defend the use of reason.) Logical arguments are said to have a truth-preserving character: if the premises are true, the conclusions are true (or reliable, if we're talking about inductive reasoning). And yet, as the following example demonstrates . . .
P1. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
P2. You are not with us,
C. therefore, you are with the terrorists.
. . . while an argument can be logically valid, that does not make it true. (The above argument would be false given the falsity of P1.)
Reason, then, may not be a "source" of truth, but what reason is there to believe that truth is found "in poetry, in nature, in relationships, in intuition"? (It might help you to address this question by drawing a distinction, if you think there is one, between "facts" and "truth.)
But in any case you can't bring what appears to be a pure rationalist discourse to bear on an article that itself claims to value intuition, tradition, and reason, and the Bible.
Why not? All John is really asking for is Chris' rationale for taking the Bible as his primary source, because as he is right to suggest (if I have understood him correctly), there is something awfully circular about claiming to apply reason to the interpretation of a text when one holds at the same time that the reliability/veracity of the text itself is not subject to dispute.
But we should perhaps allow Chris to clarify his post before getting too carried away.
I'll post tonight - apologies again for the dealy - busy with work and life and wanted to give some thought to my answer. :)
This is not really part of the discussion above on reason, but in response to your post Chris.
As a person who uses tradition to interpret the bible, ie, "how has this passage been interpreted for the last 2000 years, what were the arguments throughout history for and against this interpretation, and what did they say about this at the council of whatever," I was glad to see Chris you didn't see it as bible _vs_ tradition, reason etc thing. I've come across the idea "If you follow tradition, how can you possibly be following the bible, or following the Holy Spirit?" And no doubt I have even thought the same in the past. But that is my journey.
I'm glad that you've found a church you feel comfortable to join. God bless you on your journey, each one of you.
Hey John, Steve and Arthur thanks for your comments.
Sorry the reply has taken so long .
As was reading the comments I was thinking “primary source of what?” the original document that I signed but in a somewhat uncomfortable state was “Primary Source of God in Christ”.
I think I’d still agree that the bible is still a primary source of what God is like. (I’m not sure if it is the only one – I’d have to think a bit more about that). Is their a God is another question. For the sake of this discussion we might have to just say that some of us believe yes and others believe no. I am however in complete agreement that the argument that the Bible says there is a God so therefore there is a God is circular and non-sensical. Although there may be some people will say they believe God exists because the Bible says so my guess is that most peoples belief in God comes from something other, ranging from just being brought up to believe that or to an experience of something they believe is transcendent.
Personally, for me my belief in God came from the sense of something transcendent, an intuition if you like. The reason I’m a Xn is because I deeply connect with the Jesus I see in the gospels and see in Jesus what I felt God might be like. From there I guess it was just a case of what I read lining up with what I experienced. Now I’m more than aware that this comes across as an incredibly wishy washy kind of reasoning and that is probably why I’ve never been one to say to someone you need to believe what I believe because I’ve got it right. Furthermore I try to read the Bible as an unfolding story set in a different time and different culture so I am always wary of anyone who claims and authoritative biblical position on anything.
I do honestly try to keep stay open to the idea that I am completely mistaken about the whole God and Jesus thing. I read things like Arthur’s blog and now John’s blog and listen to things like the point of inquiry podcast in an attempt to grow as a human by challenging the things I hold dear. Things like Arthur’s Blog and the point of inquiry podcast have shaped what I believe. They haven’t stopped me believing altogether but that is still always possible.
That’s a little off tangent but hopefully gives you an idea that I’m not the sort of person who’s a Bible and nothing else kind of person. The Bible is in the mix so to speak and it’s a strong part of the mix but I do want to have the mix so that the Bible can be challenged and indeed taken out.
I think the further question that John was hinting at is what else do I believe the Bible a primary source for? Things like ethics, morals and values. That again is a different but important question. Maybe sometimes the bible is more of a guide than a source. I’m not sure where my desire to love or help others comes from but I like the way the Bible challenges me as to what it means to love or help others. I think part of me feels like it is a guide to being truly me (or truly human) that is to Christ like. Why this feels right I’m not sure, and I’m open to thoughts on this. I think if I gave up my belief in God I’d still have a desire to be Christ like in the way I live and treat others.
Anyway that’s just some quick thoughts and reflections. I’ll think more about what “authority” I give the Bible and as a source for what exactly and why and post some reflections later. This is something I’ve thought about in rough terms and often more as “I’m not xxx” like in the original post. Thanks for the challenge everyone.
As was reading the comments I was thinking “primary source of what?” the original document that I signed but in a somewhat uncomfortable state was “Primary Source of God in Christ”.
Hence the request for clarification . . . now provided--thanks :)
I think part of me feels like it is a guide to being truly me (or truly human) that is to Christ like. Why this feels right I’m not sure, and I’m open to thoughts on this. I think if I gave up my belief in God I’d still have a desire to be Christ like in the way I live and treat others.
I understand where you're coming from, and I would suggest, as I did in my response to Steve, that this . . . let's call it a moral sense or intuition is a product of evolution. If the idea that murder, stealing, lying, etc. are wrong is universal, the most likely and parsimonious explanation is that this moral intuition is hardwired. Homo sapiens is a social animal, and perhaps it has survived and thrived because it possesses the kind of hardwired morality that is most conducive to a co-operative society.
Of course, the is-ought fallacy should be avoided when making this kind of speculation. Simply having the notion that murder is wrong does not account for why murder is wrong, for instance.
But I have little difficulty believing that, as you put it, leaving Christianity would not diminish your desire to be "Christ-like."
Hi all. Good post Chris, it's been an interesting read.
I've had this come up as an issue for me recently. We've have a few sermons on the bible being the source of absolute truth while reason, experience and feelings get in the way, and shouldn't be trusted.
Similarly to you Chris I had a bit of an issue with this because I value reason and experience, and think they are very important to our interpretation and understanding of scipture and everything else. Sometimes though it seems to me that the idea of "blind faith" is glorified by the religious. It's not an idea that I support in any context.
I think (similarly to other comments here) that like so many other things we need a healthy balance. Reason alone is unable lead us, presumably because we are never going to have all the required information and understanding of the variables. Tradition, faith and intuition similarly are all handy in the right context but given too much weight, just like reason can lead to horrific outcomes.
So I'm for a healthy mix.
Post a Comment