I have recently been reading William James’ The Variety of Religious Experience mostly for kicks and giggles. I am only a couple of chapters in, but I think I am starting to get one of the points that James is trying to make. The podcast Philosophy Bites helped illuminate me on James and pragmatism. Basically, from what I can tell, James is not arguing about the truth of God’s existence, but instead the functionality of religious experience or belief of God for the individual. This is an interesting idea that I can get my head around.
For a Baptist Theological Circle that I am involved in I am prepping for a discussion on religious pluralism. Usually I tend to compare and contrast, looking at the similarities and differences. Perhaps this time it would be prudent to consider the functionality of God and the religious experience. How does a sense of the divine function in a Buddhist community, Hindu, or other communities? Such an approach does not stress so much the correctness of a religion, but considers the functionality of a religion. It is not an argument of ontological truth but one of intrasystematic truth (to borrow from Lindbeck).
I don't care if it is true, I want to know if it works.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
How the West Was Won
Remember the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? Watch that movie and you'll understand why I am restricting who can leave comments on this blog. From now on you need to have an "Open ID," whatever that is. No more ads for pictures, drugs, or false happiness. And sorry, no more snide, nameless comments.
Friday, February 19, 2010
You are Very Special!
Continuing to work at my writing, research, and what have you. I have sent sections of my fourth chapter to some of my professors and have gotten the reply (from one) that I need to condense things a bit. Perhaps I have found myself getting a little to focused on the particulars.
Think about this. We like to think that we are very important, that this time is important (reference the Goonies). We like to think that the particulars we are living in are special. We like to think this and so does everyone who came before us and everyone who will come after. Yet we are only a part of a story. We are a part of something bigger, and sometimes the particular details that we struggle do not matter so much when considering the bigger picture. This is what I have to try to do with my dissertation – not so much bigger picture, but more a look at what is changing over time. I need to consider how small changes are part of bigger changes and so on and so on. There will be historical anomalies, but they need to be named as just that: anomalies.
It is one thing to step back and view history in such a way, but it is another to view ourselves in such a way. It is not easy to look and see how we are changing slowly, how we are a part of a larger trend, and how we may not make a big difference in the long run. Of course I don’t mean you the reader. You are special. You are important. You are my special little guy/gal.
Think about this. We like to think that we are very important, that this time is important (reference the Goonies). We like to think that the particulars we are living in are special. We like to think this and so does everyone who came before us and everyone who will come after. Yet we are only a part of a story. We are a part of something bigger, and sometimes the particular details that we struggle do not matter so much when considering the bigger picture. This is what I have to try to do with my dissertation – not so much bigger picture, but more a look at what is changing over time. I need to consider how small changes are part of bigger changes and so on and so on. There will be historical anomalies, but they need to be named as just that: anomalies.
It is one thing to step back and view history in such a way, but it is another to view ourselves in such a way. It is not easy to look and see how we are changing slowly, how we are a part of a larger trend, and how we may not make a big difference in the long run. Of course I don’t mean you the reader. You are special. You are important. You are my special little guy/gal.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Politics - Now I have a mess on my hands....
This week I am supposed to present to the Rhode Island Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission about relationality and the problems of political involvement for the church. There are volumes and volumes written about such a topic, so I mostly summarized. For now, consider the reasons why the church should be involved in the polis. We believe in a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21). If this is the case, then we should be working to live in that new heaven and new earth – we should be living by that ethic and sharing that ethic any way possible. Some, like Hauerwas and H. Richard Niebuhr would argue that we should be a witness to the community for others to observe. Our role is not to be politically involved, but to the counter to the culture, calling culture to the ethos of the church. I like a lot of what Hauerwas and others are suggesting, but in the end I don’t think I can agree. There are moments when the church needs to be more than a witness – a bystander to destruction. There are moments when the church needs to be actively involved when the culture is advocating and legal sin on the societal level. Cliché case in point – the Civil Rights movement.
Of course the church should not get so involved that it becomes complicit in the mess of bill-making and legislating. Perhaps the church is to be a witness, but within the process, if this is possible. Granted, this is a difficult and delicate balance to hold. It is not easy to be in the system and not completely in it, so I am going to be deliberately vague about the details. We do need to be engaged – it is essential, but we need to be cautious as to the how. A witness alongside those who are also working for justice and peace in the world.
Of course the church should not get so involved that it becomes complicit in the mess of bill-making and legislating. Perhaps the church is to be a witness, but within the process, if this is possible. Granted, this is a difficult and delicate balance to hold. It is not easy to be in the system and not completely in it, so I am going to be deliberately vague about the details. We do need to be engaged – it is essential, but we need to be cautious as to the how. A witness alongside those who are also working for justice and peace in the world.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Moral Dangers of Chess
As usual I have been involved in more things than I should be. I’m currently reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Welcome to the Monkey House for fun – it is a great collection of short stories and a good, wry sense of humor. One story has been bouncing in my mind is “All the King’s Horses.” This one is not a comedy. It is a story of a group of soldiers who have been captured by a Communist dictatorship in the height of the Cold War. The Colonel of the group has to play the head of the government in game of chess in order for him and his company to be set free. The first twist is that the Colonel’s wife and two children are with them. The second twist is that the prisoners are to be the chess pieces. If a piece is taken than that soldier (or civilian) is killed. Diabolical!
Spoiler Alert! As the game continues the Colonel finds himself in a position to make a difficult decision. If he sacrifices one of his sons then he will ultimately win the game and his wife, other son and the few soldiers left will be allowed to live and gain their freedom. If he doesn’t sacrifice his son then he will most likely lose the game and all with die. The Colonel makes the decision to sacrifice his son and through a bizarre turn of events his son is spared and the Colonel ends up winning the game.
Some may read this and say that everything worked out and it was a happy ending. Yet I wonder what that one boy who was sacrificed will think of his father. That boy and the Colonel’s wife will have the haunting memory that the Colonel was willing to sacrifice one of his children. The Colonel will live always with the guilt of what he was willing to do. If you take all of these things into account, I would say that the Colonel did not win.
I have recently re-read the Niebuhr brothers’ classic argument over the U.S. involvement in war (Christian Century, March 1932 and on). H. Richard argues in his article, "The Grace of Doing Nothing," that the U.S. should not be involved in war but should hold to the higher ground, trust in God, and not be complicit in a sinful act. Reinhold countered that doing nothing would be a greater sin than to get involved and attempt to make something good out of the political and global mess they were facing. Taking a pragmatist stance Reinhold argued that to do nothing would be to allow a greater evil to continue. It is a fallen world and we have to live in it.
Think about this with Vonnegut’s story. What if the Colonel did nothing and all in his company as well as his wife and sons were killed? Would this have been the better action? What if the Colonel did not sacrifice his son, lost the game, and all were sacrificed? Would this have been the better action? Christians are called to a higher ethic, but can we say the Colonel did the wrong thing? Either way the Colonel will lose.
Spoiler Alert! As the game continues the Colonel finds himself in a position to make a difficult decision. If he sacrifices one of his sons then he will ultimately win the game and his wife, other son and the few soldiers left will be allowed to live and gain their freedom. If he doesn’t sacrifice his son then he will most likely lose the game and all with die. The Colonel makes the decision to sacrifice his son and through a bizarre turn of events his son is spared and the Colonel ends up winning the game.
Some may read this and say that everything worked out and it was a happy ending. Yet I wonder what that one boy who was sacrificed will think of his father. That boy and the Colonel’s wife will have the haunting memory that the Colonel was willing to sacrifice one of his children. The Colonel will live always with the guilt of what he was willing to do. If you take all of these things into account, I would say that the Colonel did not win.
I have recently re-read the Niebuhr brothers’ classic argument over the U.S. involvement in war (Christian Century, March 1932 and on). H. Richard argues in his article, "The Grace of Doing Nothing," that the U.S. should not be involved in war but should hold to the higher ground, trust in God, and not be complicit in a sinful act. Reinhold countered that doing nothing would be a greater sin than to get involved and attempt to make something good out of the political and global mess they were facing. Taking a pragmatist stance Reinhold argued that to do nothing would be to allow a greater evil to continue. It is a fallen world and we have to live in it.
Think about this with Vonnegut’s story. What if the Colonel did nothing and all in his company as well as his wife and sons were killed? Would this have been the better action? What if the Colonel did not sacrifice his son, lost the game, and all were sacrificed? Would this have been the better action? Christians are called to a higher ethic, but can we say the Colonel did the wrong thing? Either way the Colonel will lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)