I’m in the middle of reading an article in the American Academdy of Religion Journal (Volume 78, No. 2) about Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition. In this article a number of scholars give their impressions on Stout’s work. I just read the response of Richard Rorty, and had some thoughts.
Rotry wants to argue that there is no room for a theist in a pragmatist approach to reality. Using Robert Brandom’s philosophy, he claims that all authority is derived from social norms. Concerning the idea of the existence of God, Rotry states, “For commitment to the existence of a non-human person who knows truths that human beings do not seems to me to presuppose what Dewey called a spectatorial account of knowledge…The idea that there could be such knowledge is, it seems to me, a metaphysical one.”
He goes on to argue that pragmatists do not argue for perfect knowledge, for such knowledge cannot exist. Because theists follow the “rules” of a being that is above and beyond humanity, and not the “rules” of the public, they cannot be reliable citizens, at least as reliable as atheists. Here is my disclaimer – it is very like that I am missing some of the nuanced points of Rotry, so forgive me if I do. Now I can say whatever I want.
It seems to me that Rotry is missing the point that Brandom is making re: social norms. Yes, there are social norms dictated by a government, or even a political philosophy like democracy. Yet from where do we get the ideas that shape our practice of democracy? The emerge partly through practice, and partly (I would argue) from our ability to conceive of the possibility of the existence of a pure or perfect democracy. Granted, such a conception may be flawed, but it is in practicing that we hone the ideal and the real. I am sure that the pragmatists are jumping and screaming that I have just mixed up realism and idealism. Calm down tigger.
This dialectic practice of conceiving and practicing exists within the community. It is an ideal as it is talked about and shared by the community, but not a metaphysical ideal. Consider this then with theism. Religious folks talk about a deity, practice worshipping that deity, and then hone their idea of the deity. Years and decades and generations go one with sacred texts passing down truths surrounding this idea of the deity and the practices that have emerged. Such speech and dialectic exist within the confines of the community.
Now I am sure all of the religious nuts are jumping up and down, yelling that I cannot make God just a concept of a group of people. Here is the rub. Speech exists within a community. If that community says God exists, then it is true for that community. If another community says that God does not exist then it is true for that community. Where we run into trouble is when we try to judge the validity of the truth of other communities. Can we make such a judgment if we do not speak the language of the community? I mean really and truly speak and understand the language of the community? I cannot judge or evaluate the speech-act that God does not exist because I have not embraced the speech of a community of atheists. Rotry can claim that Christians are not pragmatists, but he does not fully speak the language of the Christian community.
What I am suggesting is that we can only speak about what we know. This is problematic for many, and has many holes, but is an initial response to Rotry’s critique.
It is just like mother always said, “if you can’t say something nice that would be understood by the community via the rules of the community, than do say anything at all.”
Ps – this means we (Christians) can’t judge whether or not Islam is a violent religion. We can quantify acts as violent, but we can’t judge the speech/values of a religion if we are not a part of that religion. Chew on that you crazy reactionists!
No comments:
Post a Comment