|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Law on Wittgenstein on Contradiction
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
Here. I linked it in another post but it’s worth a separate thread.
Law’s target is the view that when atheists deny the beliefs they take to be expressed by such sentences as ‘God created the world’, they fail to contradict the religious beliefs such sentences are used to express.
It’s a long piece and by no means easy, but I was taken by his argument about creationism.
quote:
In the US, for example, polls consistently indicate that around 130 million citizens believe the Earth was created by God sometime in the last ten thousand years (Bishop Ussher famously dated creation at 4004BC, and many Christians think this is about right). Most of these Christians also believe science supports this view at least as well as it supports the Old Earth/Evolutionary alternative. Even those Christians who accept that the universe is billions of years old nevertheless often suggest that there is empirical evidence to support belief in an intelligent creator and thus God (the fine-tuned character of the universe, for example).
Law concludes ‘if Wittgenstein really means to suggest that he literally cannot contradict what most religious folk mean by such sentences, then it seems to me he is mistaken’.
[ 15. May 2016, 14:26: Message edited by: peter damian ]
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Law is a fabulous logic-chopper. That was most pleasant to read. Like old home week. I found bits of it rather compelling, such as the "juicer" position, even if they don't establish Wittgenstein's no-contradiction or immunity claims.
There are some things the juicer argument (applying it to the tin-ear person) does defend. While the person with the tin ear can say, "This was not composed by Mussorgsky," they cannot say, "You cannot really hear the influence of Chopin in this piece by Mussorgsky." The question of course is whether "God exists" is more like "This was composed by Mussorgsky" or "The influence of Chopin on Mussorgsky can be heard in this piece."
Great stuff.
But I'm not sure what question you're asking. What were you hoping this thread would focus on? You're not going to get many Shippies to read a huge analytical piece on Wittgenstein. It is, as you say, difficult, and of little interest to most people who don't have at least one foot (as do you and I) in the world of analytical philosophy.
[ 15. May 2016, 16:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I wonder why he doesn't refer to D Z Phillips who explored Wittgensteinian approaches to belief throughout his career.
It's very interesting, because it's where I am, and where I think we have to be to properly express the nature of Christian belief today.
Stephen Law is one of those who approaches philosophy like chess, trying to see what arguments stand up or fall, rather than with any interest in exploring a topic. Who cares if you can argue for non-contradiction or not? The point is to understand what is going on in belief, doubt and disbelief. (I think, incidentally, that the question of doubt is a very interesting one, but that Law has little understanding of it.)
I would be atheist-minus and expressivist in Law's categories.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Law talks about Denys Turner:
According to Professor Denys Turner, for example, 'God' is not the name of a 'thing' that exists in addition to chairs, tables, planets, and the universe. Turner says to the atheist: It is no use supposing that you disagree with me if you say, 'There is no such thing as God'. For I got there well before you. (2002, 19)
It's interesting how strongly we are shaped by our influences. Denys Turner, early in his career, was my philosophy lecturer in the Theology Department at Bristol. And I remember sitting in the old building we used, called the Royal Fort, when he said almost exactly the quote above (from a truly excellent and highly readable book.) "If you listed everything in the universe, God would not be on the list", he said, and I thought "Woah! You're probably right, but my brain is wobbling too much to tell."
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Stephen Law is one of those who approaches philosophy like chess, trying to see what arguments stand up or fall, rather than with any interest in exploring a topic.
In short, he's an analytical philosopher.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
"If you listed everything in the universe, God would not be on the list", he said, and I thought "Woah! You're probably right, but my brain is wobbling too much to tell."
That's an assertion that would be shared by all good cognitivist Christian, Muslim and Jewish philosophers. Turner is echoing Aquinas here. I've read his books. That includes Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God in which Turner defends the claim that Christian faith requires there must be a rational argument that proves the existence of God (even if we don't currently know what that rational argument is).
See also David Bentley Hart, the Orthodox apologist, Rowan Williams, Herbert McCabe, et al et al.
[ 15. May 2016, 22:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... That includes Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God in which Turner defends the claim that Christian faith requires there must be a rational argument that proves the existence of God (even if we don't currently know what that rational argument is). ...
What is the value or relevance to us of a rational argument if we don't currently know what that argument is?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
And can't easily say what existence means in relation to God.
In his very earliest days Turner was known for arguing that Christians had to be Marxists, because no other political position offered hope to the poor.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
See also David Bentley Hart, the Orthodox apologist ....
Interesting. I've never heard of him. Asking my peeps now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And can't easily say what existence means in relation to God.
You say that as if we can easily say what existence means in relation to anything.
quote:
In his very earliest days Turner was known for arguing that Christians had to be Marxists, because no other political position offered hope to the poor.
Can any sane moral person be sure that's not the case?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Turner defends the claim that Christian faith requires there must be a rational argument that proves the existence of God (even if we don't currently know what that rational argument is). ...
What is the value or relevance to us of a rational argument if we don't currently know what that argument is?
Does it have to have value or relevance to us in order for there to be one?
I mean, I think he takes it that some of Aquinas' arguments are along the right lines.
But also, to take just one example, it seems to me that the existence of arguments for the existence of God is one of the things that secures us against what I've called polytheism with only one god, and Hart (in his book The Experience of God) calls monopolytheism. That is, belief that God is just one more member of the class of things in the world, albeit with particular special properties. The point is that no rational argument (with no empirical evidence) could establish the existence of a god which is just one more member of the class of things in the world. That there must be a condition, source, and ground of anything else existing at all on the other hand could potentially be established by rational argument.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Turner defends the claim that Christian faith requires there must be a rational argument that proves the existence of God (even if we don't currently know what that rational argument is). ...
What is the value or relevance to us of a rational argument if we don't currently know what that argument is?
Does it have to have value or relevance to us in order for there to be one?
Well, now, I suppose Lizzie Bennett can have value and relevance without existing. But a fictional person is not quite like a fictional argument. The thing about arguments is that in order to argue for something they have to exist. It's like people who say "Well science hasn't explained this yet, but it will, by golly, it will." It's not part of an argument. It's a promissory note for an argument.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'm not sure what question you're asking. What were you hoping this thread would focus on? You're not going to get many Shippies to read a huge analytical piece on Wittgenstein. It is, as you say, difficult, and of little interest to most people who don't have at least one foot (as do you and I) in the world of analytical philosophy.
Actually I wasn't asking a question in the OP. I am interested in Law's underlying point that many believers don't have some sophisticated or subtle metaphysical or theological or philosophical understanding of the scriptures, and just take them at face value. I.e. the assertions about resurrection are to be understood literally, that there will be bodily resurrection and so on.
A secondary question is whether the authors of the scriptures were trying to communicate precisely that 'ordinary' understanding. Perhaps they weren't trying to communicate some complex theological point by Jesus walking on the water. They were trying to persuade the ordinary reader that Jesus had supernatural powers, and thus that the ordinary reader should have faith.
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I've always been partial to the question 'so what?' If the biblical authors and most readers or hearers, then and now, believe that Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, etc. so what? Opinions on stuff that happened two thousand years ago are only interesting if they have implications today.
The way I understand the Wittgensteinian no-contradiction angle is to ask if you can have the implication without the surface belief. I think you can, that it's necessary to drop the pre-modern beliefs, and that the implications, the so-what are all that anyone really believes anyway.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Actually I wasn't asking a question in the OP. I am interested in Law's underlying point that many believers don't have some sophisticated or subtle metaphysical or theological or philosophical understanding of the scriptures, and just take them at face value. I.e. the assertions about resurrection are to be understood literally, that there will be bodily resurrection and so on.
This doesn't exactly require a philosopher of Law's caliber. It's pretty damned obvious to anybody who has spent 3 minutes in theologically conservative Christian circles.
quote:
A secondary question is whether the authors of the scriptures were trying to communicate precisely that 'ordinary' understanding. Perhaps they weren't trying to communicate some complex theological point by Jesus walking on the water. They were trying to persuade the ordinary reader that Jesus had supernatural powers, and thus that the ordinary reader should have faith.
Or maybe they weren't trying to convince anybody of anything, but describing what they saw.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In his very earliest days Turner was known for arguing that Christians had to be Marxists, because no other political position offered hope to the poor.
Can any sane moral person be sure that's not the case?
Yes. Communism, in its idealised outcome, perhaps. But Marx believed violence and oppression were necessary to achieve the end goal.
Realistically, it is difficult to see any system that meets a Christian checklist, when realised in large scale.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In his very earliest days Turner was known for arguing that Christians had to be Marxists, because no other political position offered hope to the poor.
Can any sane moral person be sure that's not the case?
Yes. Communism, in its idealised outcome, perhaps. But Marx believed violence and oppression were necessary to achieve the end goal.
Realistically, it is difficult to see any system that meets a Christian checklist, when realised in large scale.
Firstly, Marx thought violence was necessary, since he didn't think the rich would stop oppressing the poor or give up power without a fight. I'm not sure he thought any further oppression would be needed (that's Lenin who wanted to anticipate the process). If it's true that the rich won't stop oppressing the poor without a fight, then it seems callous to think it would be morally wrong for the poor to fight.
We can all hope that it's possible to persuade the rich to give up power or to take it off them without violence. Christians might make that hope a theological virtue. But the thought that violence might be needed is something that anyone in pessimistic mood might entertain.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it's true that the rich won't stop oppressing the poor without a fight, then it seems callous to think it would be morally wrong for the poor to fight.
Fight, yes. Violence is a debatable addition. And one, IMO, that Jesus' teachings do not support.
quote:
We can all hope that it's possible to persuade the rich to give up power or to take it off them without violence. Christians might make that hope a theological virtue. But the thought that violence might be needed is something that anyone in pessimistic mood might entertain.
Violence is visceral and the reaction is immediate. It has its appeal. But I still contend it is not supported by the Christ part of Christianity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We can all hope that it's possible to persuade the rich to give up power or to take it off them without violence. Christians might make that hope a theological virtue. But the thought that violence might be needed is something that anyone in pessimistic mood might entertain.
Violence is visceral and the reaction is immediate. It has its appeal. But I still contend it is not supported by the Christ part of Christianity.
I wouldn't say that any sane person can be sure that being not supported by Christianity is the same thing as being untrue.
Maybe there are some saints who see the beatific vision and know. But not so for the rest of us.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The problem with violence for social change is that it is likely to affect the culture of the resultant society. Violence is an agent, but not a pure catalyst.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In his very earliest days Turner was known for arguing that Christians had to be Marxists, because no other political position offered hope to the poor.
Can any sane moral person be sure that's not the case?
Yes. Communism, in its idealised outcome, perhaps. But Marx believed violence and oppression were necessary to achieve the end goal.
Realistically, it is difficult to see any system that meets a Christian checklist, when realised in large scale.
Firstly, Marx thought violence was necessary, since he didn't think the rich would stop oppressing the poor or give up power without a fight. I'm not sure he thought any further oppression would be needed (that's Lenin who wanted to anticipate the process). If it's true that the rich won't stop oppressing the poor without a fight, then it seems callous to think it would be morally wrong for the poor to fight.
We can all hope that it's possible to persuade the rich to give up power or to take it off them without violence. Christians might make that hope a theological virtue. But the thought that violence might be needed is something that anyone in pessimistic mood might entertain.
It would be morally wrong fro Christians to fight. To use violence. And no of course that doesn't include immediate self and other defence. Although I'm off to keep my hands in my pockets with Leicester's street people. Unless they lay hands on others.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It could morally right however, situation ethics, short term utilitarianism or what have you, but wouldn't be Christian. Even though dominant Christians have justified it for 1700 years to date. Whilst paying lip service to the impossible dream of actually living like Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Welcome to Wittengestein's world where words do not have literal meaning but gain meaning through the uses they are put to.
The question is not whether there is evidence for a created world but what are Christians doing when they make such statements. On the whole, they are not making statements about the nature of how the Universe came into being but are making statements about the nature of the God they believe in or probably more accurately they are doing identity work which expresses their loyalty to a particular group through key statements one of which is that "God created the Universe".
If this is the case and belief is to be understood in this way, a fairly similar form to Stringer's Situational Belief then there is no point in trotting out scientific evidence to convince them otherwise.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Welcome to Wittengestein's world where words do not have literal meaning but gain meaning through the uses they are put to.
For a descriptivist, that's what words do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zogwarg
Apprentice
# 13040
|
Posted
I find the quoted part to provide statements which are a little too specific (specially compared to those provided by Wittgenstein).
- "Earth was created in the last 10'000 years"
- "There is as much scientific evidence for old earth/evolution or new earth"
These are a very far cry from a statement like: "There is a God". And probably not included in what the average Christian will mean by the latter.
Some (Christian?) statements can be refuted, and others cannot. And in a finer sense, if for an ordinary christian saying "There is a God" does include those refutable parts, then it it doesn't mean that his whole statement is refuted.
Or at the very least it shouldn't matter to his creed. (I might believe in a literal flood, that doesn't mean it is essential to my faith)
"The earth isn't spherical" is technically correct, it's an oblate spheroid with surface irregularities. But it isn't the most useful of rebuttals, since only the particulars are wrong. (And someone hearing this might understand that the speaker thinks the earth is flat !)
I might believe the earth to be a sphere, someone pointing out a mountain won't exactly change/invalidate my general belief.
That being said i agree with the conclusion:
quote:
if Wittgenstein really means to suggest that he literally cannot contradict what most religious folk mean by such sentences, then it seems to me he is mistaken.
Even from a non-informed locutor, i think "There is no Christian God" when said to a christian qualifies. (Since the statement is referential, again that doesn't make it a useful or productive utterance on it's own)
--------------------
What's a signature?
Posts: 19 | From: Au pays du soleil levant | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The problem is not that the facts are incorrect but by replying to the statement with facts you fail to understand the purpose of the statement which is not about facts although it appears to be.
The question is what is the person making that statement trying to do. On the whole, their purpose is not usually dispute scientific facts. It may be to indicate loyalty to a group or it may be a statement about their belief in the nature of God. All those saying "These are the facts that are hard to contradict" are missing Wittgenstein's point. The facts are not wrong with respect to the purpose but irrelevant. It can be argued (I do not necessarily endorse*) that good religious language is language that brings consensus and identity to a religious community. It thereby gives both a feeling of being special and of being part of something bigger.
Jengie
*As a sociologist of religion I can see the appeal of this understanding, as a Reformed Christian dealing in that tradition I have a big "BUT..."
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If Christ is not raised from the dead, then I am not consoled by being a member of a church or society or religious group that talks a good game. I am glad our religious dialogue unites us, but only because it unites us around something worthy of being united around.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
What do you mean by raised from the dead? There are many a complex understanding and I suspect you do not mean a simplistic coming to coming back to life of a dead body like Zombies.
I suspect far more important than that would be it as an expression of death's inability to contain God. That, however, is not a matter of fact or counter fact.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zogwarg
Apprentice
# 13040
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The problem is not that the facts are incorrect but by replying to the statement with facts you fail to understand the purpose of the statement which is not about facts although it appears to be.
[...]
All those saying "These are the facts that are hard to contradict" are missing Wittgenstein's point.
But then that could be said of any statement, it could even be said of the there is no god statement. Trying to belong to truth and reason, and feeling special for totally being above religion. [In fact one might be accused of missing the point of the rebuttal]
Words might have other purpose than carrying their meaning: weather talk for one. But you're not going to say it's raining when it's not, even to make conversation and (un)make societal bonds.
I don't really want to live in world, where expressing my beliefs is just a statement of belonging, and where these beliefs can never be properly challenged. I think it kinds of demeans the whole thing.
And again I think even even the most unfalsifiable statements can be rebutted. (just saying that Law chose some very unfortunate examples.)
--------------------
What's a signature?
Posts: 19 | From: Au pays du soleil levant | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If Christ is not raised from the dead, then I am not consoled by being a member of a church or society or religious group that talks a good game. I am glad our religious dialogue unites us, but only because it unites us around something worthy of being united around.
This, and then some.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
What do you mean by raised from the dead? There are many a complex understanding and I suspect you do not mean a simplistic coming to coming back to life of a dead body like Zombies.
"Like Zombies"? Really? Is that the account we get in the Gospels? Because, if not, why would you think that is the obvious/only way to conceive of an actual, bodily resurrection?
I'm not speaking for mousethief here (obviously), but for me it means, amongst other things: - The body of Christ that was laid in the tomb was gone
- Christ's body was raised "incorruptible", completely continuous with his pre-death one but gloriously transformed
- Christ in his resurrected body appeared to His disciples
- Christ's resurrected body bore the wounds of His passion
- Christ in His resurrected body ate with His disciples
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I suspect far more important than that would be it as an expression of death's inability to contain God. That, however, is not a matter of fact or counter fact.
Sounds to me like a false dichotomy, but of course it is a matter of truth or falsity. Of course it betokens that death had no hold over God, that Christ has conquered death. But He either actually did that or He didn't. It's kind of important to know which.
If the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection amount to no more than the "expression" of a concept, and don't bear true witness to an actual, bodily, personal encounter with the Risen Christ then I for one am amongst those who are most to be pitied.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, as always when not speaking about things that divide our Churches, says what I would have said had I given it as much thought and wisdom (if I had the reserves).
Let me just add this to Jengie Jon: What do you mean by "what do you mean by raised from the dead"? This seems uncharacteristically disingenuous. What do you think an Orthodox means by "raised from the dead"? I didn't invent the words this week, and don't intend to use them in any other way than the Church has used them for the last 2000 years.
If you don't know what the Orthodox mean by it (which is also what the Catholics mean by it, and many others as well) you might try Wikipedia. Because there's nothing new about what we use those words to mean.
This used to be common knowledge. What do they teach them in these schools?
[ 04. June 2016, 00:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection amount to no more than the "expression" of a concept, and don't bear true witness to an actual, bodily, personal encounter with the Risen Christ then I for one am amongst those who are most to be pitied.
I also.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I also.
Let me nail my TEC colours to Chesterbelloc's mast as well. The Gospels contain accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe them to be a genuine historical record of something that actually happened.
I will happily affirm everything that Chesterbelloc and mousethief have said in the last few posts. If the resurrection isn't real - if it's a metaphor, or a fairy tale or whatever - then the whole thing is a pile of crap.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The resurrection of Jesus is only something you can dramatically nail your colours to the mast about, only something you can grandly assert is crucial to your continuing faith and self identity, if it means something. That something is what Wittgenstein would say you believe in. Not the facts, but their consequences, or, before that, the facts connected into a story that offers an explanation and interpretation of those facts.
The resurrection is a weird but perhaps helpful example, because it is composed very loosely out of a collection of powerful experiences, those of the disciples, which barely fit together, are framed by deep grief and the threat of despair, and are only united by a narrative that is marked by mystery and playfulness.
Forget Wittgenstein, the resurrection is itself an invitation to abandon naive realism, to agree that even table and chairs is a metaphor and a concept. Meaning depends on how you tell it, it's a function of the story not the facts, and stories are always about us. Who did and does the resurrection happen to?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The resurrection of Jesus is only something you can dramatically nail your colours to the mast about, only something you can grandly assert is crucial to your continuing faith and self identity, if it means something. [..] Not the facts, but their consequences
No. The facts AND the consequences. Nonfactual things - things that didn't actually happen - don't have consequences.*
And of course the Resurrection "means something" - it's the single most significant event in human history. But it's only significant because/if it actually happened. And no amount of sophisticated "nuancing" of any kind, it seems to me, can escape that.
*To anticipate: which is not to say that the fact of something's not having happened does not have consequences, obviously.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How funny to invoke Wittgenstein to deconstruct facts, he who said:
--The world is everything that is the case.
--The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
--The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
--For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also what is not the case.
--The world divides into facts.
And so on. I know he repudiated the Tractatus in favor of a squishy philosophy of "language games," but it is still instructive that he managed to create a fiercely consistent worldview based not on things but on facts.
(BTW once again Chesterbelloc adequately states the facts.)
[ 04. June 2016, 12:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I know he repudiated the Tractatus in favor of a squishy philosophy of "language games," but it is still instructive that he managed to create a fiercely consistent worldview based not on things but on facts.
Given that he did repudiate the Tractatus, I don't think it is funny to invoke him.
I'm not sure I'd describe the Tractatus as a fiercely consistent worldview. It's a fiercely consistent description of what the world would have to be like if much analytic philosophy of language was correct. But you could equally regard it as a reductio ad absurdum of analytic philosophy of language.
Not that I think Wittgenstein's later philosophy altogether supports the idea that religious language's sole meaning is to create ingroups and outgroups or otherwise. That implies a boundary between different uses of language that is much more rigid than I think actually obtains.
Still there is some sense to the idea. If someone makes an assertion such as 'Obama's birth certificate is fake,' does that mean they actually believe that, that they actually think the evidence is sufficient to warrant the belief? Clearly it's possible to contradict what they're saying. But possibly you'd contradict it by saying something apparently irrelevant like 'my brother's husband is good people'.
For that matter, I think hatless' assertions about facts and meaning are better understood as self-demonstrating uses of language to mark in-groups and out-groups than as assertions about the relationship between facts and meaning.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The resurrection of Jesus is only something you can dramatically nail your colours to the mast about, only something you can grandly assert is crucial to your continuing faith and self identity, if it means something.
You (or maybe Wittgenstein) make a huge leap here. You're asserting that the reality of the resurrection only means anything if it has consequences, and so what I "really" believe are the consequences, and it doesn't matter so much about the resurrection.
Let me try and explain why I think this is nonsense.
I believe that a number of groups of people have made measurements demonstrating that neutrinos change species as they propagate through space. A consequence of this observation is that neutrinos must have mass (and the details of exactly what happens places constraints on those masses...). So because of the measurements, I believe that neutrinos have mass.
It seems that you would have me say that the important thing is my belief in neutrino mass, and you can take away the measurements and leave me unaffected. That's nonsense - the measurements are the reason why I believe neutrinos have mass. Take them away and I no longer have a reason to have an opinion either way on the subject.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The resurrection is a weird but perhaps helpful example, because it is composed very loosely out of a collection of powerful experiences, those of the disciples, which barely fit together,
OK, I can't let this one go by. "Barely fit together" really isn't a good description of the Gospel accounts. By the standards of eyewitness records, the Gospel accounts agree very well.
Eyewitnesses screw up details and interpolate things all the time. It's how people work.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The resurrection of Jesus is only something you can dramatically nail your colours to the mast about, only something you can grandly assert is crucial to your continuing faith and self identity, if it means something.
You (or maybe Wittgenstein) make a huge leap here. You're asserting that the reality of the resurrection only means anything if it has consequences, and so what I "really" believe are the consequences, and it doesn't matter so much about the resurrection.
Let me try and explain why I think this is nonsense.
I believe that a number of groups of people have made measurements demonstrating that neutrinos change species as they propagate through space. A consequence of this observation is that neutrinos must have mass (and the details of exactly what happens places constraints on those masses...). So because of the measurements, I believe that neutrinos have mass.
It seems that you would have me say that the important thing is my belief in neutrino mass, and you can take away the measurements and leave me unaffected. That's nonsense - the measurements are the reason why I believe neutrinos have mass. Take them away and I no longer have a reason to have an opinion either way on the subject.
No, I don't think that's quite right.
I don't understand why the measurements entail mass, or even what mass means at that level, but couldn't you frame it the other way round? The measurements that have been made appear to be the consequence of neutrinos having mass, or you could say, having mass is the explanation of the measurements. The mass isn't being measured directly; it is inferred from other measurements and a theory of how particles like neutrinos work. It's not the mass which is the consequence, though you could say that the attribution of mass is a consequence of the data and the theory together.
So it's a bit like saying that 'having mass' is equivalent to 'being raised', and it is indeed having mass, or being raised that you believe in, not the data or the disciples' reports of appearances.
But I think it is important that the resurrection isn't some corner of theoretical science, but is something with personal implications for us all.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The resurrection is a weird but perhaps helpful example, because it is composed very loosely out of a collection of powerful experiences, those of the disciples, which barely fit together,
OK, I can't let this one go by. "Barely fit together" really isn't a good description of the Gospel accounts. By the standards of eyewitness records, the Gospel accounts agree very well.
Eyewitnesses screw up details and interpolate things all the time. It's how people work.
It's like JFK's death, if we had no film or police reports, being described as on different days of the week, with varying numbers of people in the car, Matthew, Mark and John say it was in Dallas, but Luke reckons it was New York, meanwhile Paul, who wrote the big biography twenty years before those guys doesn't mention anything about a shooting in a car at all.
There is no overlap between the appearance stories in the gospels; the gospels stop being synoptic. Plus the appearance stories are of, as I said, a mysterious and playful character.
The evidence is of a character that should tell us not to approach it as if it were like any other evidence, and that it's probably best not to think of it as evidence at all.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Dafyd, you appear to be making a false dichotomy. Either the resurrection language is truthy/falsey, or it is in-groupy/out-groupy. As if it can't be both.
When someone says "Obama's birth certificate is fake" there is no reason to think they do not believe that the document that was demonstrated to the world and claimed to be PBO's birth certificate is not, in fact, his birth certificate.
Now it may be that the person believes this not because he has any evidence to support the claim that it's fake, but because all the people around him, the ones who matter to him, and in whose good graces he wishes to remain, believe so. But it's, imho, ridiculous to think he reasons within himself, "I wish to remain in this crowd. I'd better believe it's fake, or at least pretend to." There's no reason to think that's the direction his thinking goes at all, unless you're trying to shove his experience into a Procrustean Bed of some theory or other.
Rather he undoubtedly reasons "These people whom I trust think it's fake. They must be right. It must be fake."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's like JFK's death, if we had no film or police reports, being described as on different days of the week, with varying numbers of people in the car, Matthew, Mark and John say it was in Dallas, but Luke reckons it was New York, meanwhile Paul, who wrote the big biography twenty years before those guys doesn't mention anything about a shooting in a car at all.
And if we had no film or police records, no news reports and mass media to fix the details firmly in people's minds, but were relying on the grandchildren of people who had been there writing down what their old grandad had told them, that's exactly what you'd expect.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But I think it is important that the resurrection isn't some corner of theoretical science, but is something with personal implications for us all.
You keep saying that as if someone were denying it. No-one is.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So it's a bit like saying that 'having mass' is equivalent to 'being raised', and it is indeed having mass, or being raised that you believe in, not the data or the disciples' reports of appearances.
But I believe neutrinos have mass because of the measurements. Take away the measurements, and I have no reason to believe in the mass.
I believe in neutrino mass because of the measurements. I believe in the resurrection because I believe that the Gospel records - that Jesus died on the cross, and subsequently reappeared and ate and drank with his disciples with an actual physical body - are broadly accurate. It's the same thought process.
quote:
But I think it is important that the resurrection isn't some corner of theoretical science, but is something with personal implications for us all.
There's nothing theoretical about neutrinos - they are real things that you can, well not touch exactly, but observe, in a completely reproducible way. They are exactly as real as a deckchair.
I picked neutrino mass because it's a small, concrete example. "Neutrinos have mass" is a straightforward statement that doesn't contain possible alternative meanings or metaphors. But there's no a priori reason to think that they have to have mass: as far as we know, you can build a perfectly satisfactory universe with massless neutrinos. So the only reason to think one way or other about neutrino mass is the experimental data.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's like JFK's death, if we had no film or police reports, being described as on different days of the week, with varying numbers of people in the car, Matthew, Mark and John say it was in Dallas, but Luke reckons it was New York, meanwhile Paul, who wrote the big biography twenty years before those guys doesn't mention anything about a shooting in a car at all.
And if we had no film or police records, no news reports and mass media to fix the details firmly in people's minds, but were relying on the grandchildren of people who had been there writing down what their old grandad had told them, that's exactly what you'd expect.
We have accounts of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the cleansing of the temple, and the arrest, trials and crucifixion of Jesus. These set the benchmark for the degree and sort of variation we should expect. The resurrection accounts differ in ways and to a degree unlike others.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But I think it is important that the resurrection isn't some corner of theoretical science, but is something with personal implications for us all.
You keep saying that as if someone were denying it. No-one is.
Well, Leorning Cniht likened the issue to a physics problem, and there are indeed parallels. I said what you quoted to point out that resurrection belief is an existential matter (not in the new, trendy sense of existential) and can't really be like theories and measurements.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
We have accounts of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the cleansing of the temple, and the arrest, trials and crucifixion of Jesus. These set the benchmark for the degree and sort of variation we should expect. The resurrection accounts differ in ways and to a degree unlike others.
Was he born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Did his parents flee to Egypt or settle down? Was he crucified on the Feast of Passover, or the day after? Was the cleansing of the temple late in his career or early? There are tons of conflicting data before the resurrection. You paint a far too facile black line through Easter morning.
[ 04. June 2016, 20:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht said
quote:
I believe in neutrino mass because of the measurements. I believe in the resurrection because I believe that the Gospel records - that Jesus died on the cross, and subsequently reappeared and ate and drank with his disciples with an actual physical body - are broadly accurate. It's the same thought process.
I think that's almost what I'm saying, too. The observations are that Jesus died, and that subsequently his disciples 'met' him, or at least that they reported having met him, in a variety of personal, emotional and transforming ways. And other stuff, like the empty tomb and angels.
But that's not yet a theory of resurrection. When you say you believe he ate and drank with an actual physical body you are starting to go beyond the evidence and moving towards a theory of resurrection, of what happened and what it was like.
As always, the word believe is a pain. You believe the gospel accounts are broadly accurate: let's call that 'believe' a judgment about the evidence. It's a sort of opinion. You arrive at it by rational historical critical methods. In my case the big argument is that something must have happened because the cross wasn't the end.
But believing in the resurrection is a different sort of belief, the sort that makes you leave home and security, perhaps, that brings a reckless joy to you. There are probably many different possible resurrection beliefs, but they are going to be about Jesus, but also the faith of the disciples and the new status of death, including our death. This is pin your colours to the mast stuff, but it's not about the tomb, not measurement stuff, it's mass of the neutrino stuff and personal with it.
A few posts ago Chesterbelloc offered five bullet points to describe his resurrection belief. I really don't know what to say. Bullet points? For me they exemplify the dead, fact bound, defend-the-certainties mentality that resurrection sets us free from.
Resurrection is not what happened to Jesus, it's what was always true about Jesus and which dawned on the disciples one by one, a sunrise that still happens to us today, not because of facts so old we can no longer check them, but because of a story unstale that invites us in.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
