tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86089254862254158362024-03-13T18:08:30.233+00:00Shadows Veil Our Eyes...A collection of thoughts, quotes, questions, and struggles in the midst of faith, risk, and (im)possibility...Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.comBlogger384125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-59155631184435540212017-03-16T05:24:00.003+00:002017-03-16T05:25:01.954+00:00Please read...This is a very timely and important statement. Please read it, especially if you are involved in higher education or politics in any capacity.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://jmp.princeton.edu/statement">http://jmp.princeton.edu/statement</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-58636544766153744322014-11-24T15:26:00.005+00:002014-11-24T15:26:59.422+00:00Kierkegaard on our attempts to vindicate God..."There is a certain kind of religiousness... that has the conception of God as a jealous despot of limited understanding who is consumed with a vehement desire to have the world informed by a particular person's odd gestures that God was loved by a particular person. As if God desired any distinction, or as if this were an appropriate distinction for God, since everyone can perceive that even for a princess it is no distinction to be loved by a common laborer! A religiousness like that is itself sickly and ailing, and therefore it also makes God sickly... the poor God who, in his awkward position of being invisible and yet so eager to have public attention drawn to him, is sitting and waiting for someone to do it for him."<br />
<br />
- from Concluding Unscientific PostscriptGeoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-57161411186180418502014-10-20T19:07:00.001+01:002014-10-20T19:07:08.278+01:00A brief comment on the value of music, etc.This is from an article in the Globe and Mail, and the writer gets it spot on. Music, books, etc. have value, and every time we steal - yes, steal - a product, we are effectively saying we don't value it, while at the same time valuing it. That is, we're being hypocritical lying thieves. (I'm speaking to myself here as much as anyone!) Here's the takeaway:<br />
<br />
<b>"You're thinking, 'Nobody asked writers to write. Don't they know a
nice degree in commerce will serve them better in the long run? Nobody
asked Iggy to roll around on stage in broken glass. He could have had a
nice job as an actuary, although he would have had to keep his pants
on.'</b><br />
<br />
<b>But in truth, we do ask: Every time we go to a library or
shop, we want it to be full of new books, and when we search various
channels (legal and illegal) for new music and movies, we expect to find
them. Someone has to produce this content – this art – and sadly, the
shoemakers' elves are all busy stitching elsewhere. And after it's been
produced, someone has to buy it. Or not buy it, as is more likely the
case.</b><br />
<br />
<b>It comes down to a question of value: Do we value artists'
effort? The boring years spent in the studio or rehearsal hall, the
torched drafts – Mr. Flanagan burned five early versions of his novel
before he got it right... I'm glad Iggy Pop and Mr.
Flanagan have brought the issue of artists' earnings out into the open,
because it's too often avoided as embarrassing or demeaning or
irrelevant to the process. In fact, it's crucial.</b><br />
<br />
<b>As author and
cartoonist Tim Kreider wrote in a recent essay
about not getting paid for his work, 'money is also how our culture
defines value, and being told that what you do is of no ($0.00) value to
the society you live in is, frankly, demoralizing'."</b><br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-83835479440362398172014-07-03T22:13:00.000+01:002014-07-03T22:13:59.191+01:00Kierkegaard on God's omnipotence..."Only omnipotence can withdraw itself at the same time it gives itself away, and this relationship is the very independence of the receiver. God's omnipotence is therefore his goodness. For goodness is to give away completely, but in such a way that by omnipotently taking oneself back one makes the recipient independent.<br />
<br />
All finite power makes [a being] dependent; only omnipotence can make [a being] independent, can form from nothing something that has its continuity in itself through the continuous withdrawing of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not ensconced in a relationship to another, for there is no other to which it is comparable--no, it can give without giving up the least of its power, that is, it can make [a being] independent. It is incomprehensible that omnipotence is able not only to create the most impressive of all things--the whole visible world--but is able to create the most frail of all things--a being independent of that very omnipotence.<br />
<br />
Omnipotence, which can handle the world so toughly and with such a heavy hand, can also make itself so light that what it has brought into existence receives independence. Only a wretched and worldly conception of the dialectic of power holds that it is greater and greater in proportion to its ability to compel and to make dependent. No, Socrates had a sounder understanding; he knew that the art of power lies precisely in making another free. But in the relationship between individuals this can never be done, even though it needs to be emphasized again and again that this is the highest; only omnipotence can truly succeed in this.<br />
<br />
Therefore if a human being had the slightest independent existence over against God (with regard to materia), then God could not make him free. Creation out of nothing is once again the Omnipotent One's expression for being able to make [a being] independent. He to whom I owe absolutely everything, although he still absolutely controls everything, has in fact made me independent. If in creating man God himself lost a little of his power, then precisely what he could not do would be to make a human being independent."Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-41957377357516537102014-04-12T15:03:00.001+01:002014-04-12T15:04:25.754+01:00Disturbing new study...Something to be aware of, and perhaps some of you might want to get involved with trying to fix this:<br />
<br />
http://tacreports.org/treatment-behind-bars/executive-summary<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-72140271746703224372014-03-18T23:40:00.001+00:002014-03-18T23:41:35.211+00:00Great quote from Marilynne Robinson...Taken from: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/christian-not-conservative<br />
<br />
"Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away."<br />
<br />
Convicting and profound words, in my opinion.<br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-67896660354800175232013-09-18T16:41:00.004+01:002013-09-18T16:43:20.964+01:00A Bit More Clarity on Hegel (Courtesy of Stephen Houlgate)...(quotes taken from Houlgate's Book, 'An Introduction to Hegel')<br />
<br />
Hegel thinks that thought and reality are going to grow together in ever increasing clarity. Houlgate notes that some might think this to be presumptuous: "How can thought be certain that it is able to bridge the gap between itself and being and disclose the true nature of what there is?" (p. 45) But, he continues, for Hegel this is a bad question, because it assumes that there is a gap between thought and being in the first place, and not, instead, that the gap is between thought and itself — in other words, the problem is not that thought and being are separate, but rather that thought has not, in its incomplete stages, understood the unity between itself and being.<br />
<br />
But does this not amount to the same thing said in a different way? Not necessarily. In the first instance, what is and what we think about that reality are disconnected from each other by a structural deficiency that is ultimately unbridgeable by either reality or thought. In the second (Hegelian) instance, reality and thought are primordially and ontologically connected — indeed, united — but there is a disconnect within thought itself which does not allow thought to recognize this unity, since it has been too quick to assume that the categories by which thought functions (i.e., our logical principles) must be the absolutely correct way of understanding the world, which leads to the resulting blindness that is incorrectly perceived as a disconnect between thought and that world.<br />
<br />
But, likewise, this means that if Hegel is going to be consistent, he will not — and indeed Houlgate thinks he does not — make any absolute claim about the fundamental unity of thought and reality at the start of his logic either. For to do so would be to start with an unnecessary presupposition that cannot be justified. Thus, because "we can presuppose no conceivable distinction between thought and being at the beginning of the Logic, the categories set out in the Logic must be ontological. At the same time they cannot provide a description of any Absolute, reality or being that is presupposed as the distinct, given object of philosophical enquiry." (p. 45)<br />
<br />
What, then, do we make of Hegel's statements that the end of the system is the beginning, and vice versa? Are we simply to take Hegel at his word that the discovery of 'Absolute Being' is something that he did not conceive of prior to reaching the end of his system, and that it is merely coincidental that the fact of Absolute Being as the end of the system means that such unity and conceptual truth is also the beginning of the system? It seems too convenient... at least that's my impression.<br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-68263408506366199602013-07-08T18:01:00.002+01:002013-07-08T18:03:19.736+01:00The Struggle With God...“Surely God as the Wholly Other cannot be grasped, and especially not in the scandalous tangibility of such a struggle, unless God has become incarnated in the divine giving of Godself to be struggled with. While the threat of annihilation is not reciprocal, one sees a God who, by taking in some enigmatic way the form of a man, actually partakes to a degree in this human mutuality. The possibility of the struggle relies, not upon the sublimation of flesh into spirit, but upon God allowing Godself to be struggled with—indeed, God's giving of Godself in the struggle.”<br />
<br />
Simon Podmore (in "Kierkegaard and the Self Before God")Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-76412898501090798692013-06-30T20:31:00.001+01:002013-06-30T20:31:32.305+01:00The mystery of selfhood..."The closer you come to the other one's mystery, and the more the other one reveals of that mystery, the more clearly you come to see that there are even vaster regions and depths of the other's interior being which remain unknown and in large measure unknowable. You come to realize that just as there are great stretches of your own interior being which you have never shared with anyone, much of which you could not find the medium for sharing even if you wanted to, just so it is true of every other human being."<br />
<br />
- Arnold B. ComeGeoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-78750360041207887152013-05-31T14:45:00.001+01:002013-05-31T14:49:47.159+01:00Wells on re-thinking 'service'...Haven't had much motivation to post lately, mainly because I don't feel like I have much of interest to say. So, I'll post a link to a very interesting essay by Samuel Wells:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thecresset.org/2013/Easter/Wells_E2013.html">http://thecresset.org/2013/Easter/Wells_E2013.html</a><br />
<br />
Although I think Wells may be creating a false dichotomy between mortality and isolation in some sense, I do think that this is a challenging essay and worth reading, as it describes what is probably one of the most important issues of our time that Christians must consider; that is, what it really means to love others (and God). Is love primarily about solving problems, or is it primarily about being present with others? And if the answer is the latter, then what might that mean for the way we ought to conceive of God?<br />
<br />
I do think eternity matters; indeed, it is necessary if our faith is to avoid being reduced to Feuerbachian or Freudian caricatures. Extreme immanentist versions of Christianity are ultimately hopeless. But eternity only really matters if love is present. Otherwise, as the author points out, eternity would be hell. And love involves a kind of presence-with-others that, at least speaking for myself, is something still very difficult to put into practice. My hope is that I will, with God's grace, continue to become a person who loves others the way God loves us all.Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-20921144287642035162013-05-04T15:06:00.003+01:002013-05-04T15:06:22.725+01:00Happy 200th Birthday, S.K.!Sunday, May 5, is Kierkegaard's 200th birthday celebration. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/opinion/global/Kierkegaard-at-200.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0">Here's a brief bio</a> for anyone who may want to read and know a bit more about my favorite thinker.Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-73576332425778594892013-04-06T00:46:00.000+01:002013-04-06T00:46:14.260+01:00Wendell Berry on Learning about Limits, Economic and Otherwise...(This is from a very wise and thought-provoking essay I read a while back by Wendell Berry... I thought I'd re-post some of it here.)<br />
<br />
[I]n the phrase 'free market', the word 'free' has come to mean unlimited economic power for some, with the necessary consequence of economic powerlessness for others. Several years ago, after I had spoken at a meeting, two earnest and obviously troubled young veterinarians approached me with a question: How could they practice veterinary medicine without serious economic damage to the farmers who were their clients?<br />
<br />
Underlying their question was the fact that for a long time veterinary help for a sheep or a pig has been likely to cost more than the animal is worth.
I had to answer that, in my opinion, so long as their practice relied heavily on selling patented drugs, they had no choice, since the market for medicinal drugs was entirely controlled by the drug companies, whereas most farmers had no control at all over the market for agricultural products. My questioners were asking in effect if a predatory economy can have a beneficent result. The answer too often is 'No'. And that is because there is an absolute discontinuity between the economy of the seller of medicines and the economy of the buyer, as there is in the health industry as a whole. The drug industry is interested in the survival of patients, we have to suppose, because surviving patients will continue to consume drugs.<br />
<br />
Now let us consider a contrary example. Recently, at another meeting, I talked for some time with an elderly, and some would say an old-fashioned, farmer from Nebraska. Unable to farm any longer himself, he had rented his land to a younger farmer on the basis of what he called 'crop share' instead of a price paid or owed in advance. Thus, as the old farmer said of his renter, "If he has a good year, I have a good year. If he has a bad year, I have a bad one." This is what I would call community economics. It is a sharing of fate. It assures an economic continuity and a common interest between the two partners to the trade. This is as far as possible from the economy in which the young veterinarians were caught, in which the powerful are limitlessly 'free' to trade, to the disadvantage, and ultimately the ruin, of the powerless.<br />
<br />
It is this economy of community destruction that, wittingly or unwittingly, most scientists and technicians have served for the past two hundred years. These scientists and technicians have justified themselves by the proposition that they are the vanguard of progress, enlarging human knowledge and power, and thus they have romanticized both themselves and the predatory enterprises that they have served.
As a consequence, our great need now is for sciences and technologies of limits, of domesticity, of what Wes Jackson of the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, has called 'homecoming'. These would be specifically human sciences and technologies, working, as the best humans always have worked, within self-imposed limits. The limits would be the accepted contexts of places, communities, and neighborhoods, both natural and human.<br />
<br />
I know that the idea of such limitations will horrify some people, maybe most people, for we have long encouraged ourselves to feel at home on 'the cutting edges' of knowledge and power or on some 'frontier' of human experience. But I know too that we are talking now in the presence of much evidence that improvement by outward expansion may no longer be a good idea, if it ever was. It was not a good idea for the farmers who 'leveraged' secure acreage to buy more during the 1970s. It has proved tragically to be a bad idea in a number of recent wars. If it is a good idea in the form of corporate gigantism, then we must ask, For whom? Faustus, who wants all knowledge and all the world for himself, is a man supremely lonely and finally doomed. I don't think Marlowe was kidding. I don't think Satan is kidding when he says in Paradise Lost, "Myself am Hell."<br />
<br />
If the idea of appropriate limitation seems unacceptable to us, that may be because, like Marlowe's Faustus and Milton's Satan, we confuse limits with confinement. But that, as I think Marlowe and Milton and others were trying to tell us, is a great and potentially a fatal mistake. Satan's fault, as Milton understood it and perhaps with some sympathy, was precisely that he could not tolerate his proper limitation; he could not subordinate himself to anything whatever. Faustus's error was his unwillingness to remain "Faustus, and a man."<br />
<br />
In our age of the world it is not rare to find writers, critics, and teachers of literature, as well as scientists and technicians, who regard Satan's and Faustus's defiance as salutary and heroic.
On the contrary, our human and earthly limits, properly understood, are not confinements but rather inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship and meaning. Perhaps our most serious cultural loss in recent centuries is the knowledge that some things, though limited, are inexhaustible.<br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-34620312043608508982013-03-26T17:18:00.002+00:002013-03-26T17:18:38.387+00:00Houlgate on Kantian and Hegelian approaches to logical thought...Unlike Kant, says Houlgate, who attempted to show that through the use of analytic judgments we "do not proceed to a new and different determination, we simply gain greater clarity about what we began with" (whereas with synthetic judgments we really do discover new determinations), Hegel seems to think that new determinations CAN be found analytically -- that is, "the concepts of becoming and determinate being are derived by Hegel simply by considering what is involved in thinking pure being... by 'analysing' that initial determinate concept." (p. 37)<br />
<br />
So, in contrast to Kantian thinking, which concerns itself with developing the relations of identity or equivalence between things and/or ideas, Houlgate explains that "Hegelian logic is 'analytic' to the extent that it merely renders explicit what is implicit or unthought in an initial category. However, by explicating the indeterminate category of being, we do not merely restate in different words what is obviously 'contained' in it; we watch a <i>new</i> category emerge." (p. 38, emphasis in original) Thus, "we are required by Hegel's method of 'analysis' to undertake constant and subtle revisions of the way we think." (p. 38) It is this approach, I think, which is a great strength of Hegelian logic. But it also contains an inherent weakness since, to the extent that it is wedded to an historical or material ontology, it results in an inevitable incompleteness that can never be resolved. (I think this is something of what Derrida tries to say vis-a-vis Hegelian thought.)<br />
<br />
Houlgate explains that "The dialectical principle, for Hegel, is the principle whereby apparently stable thoughts reveal their inherent instability by turning into their opposites and then into new, more complex thoughts." (p. 38) Hegel believes that a system built upon this principle creates freedom for thought, as thought is no longer forced into the mold cast for it by certain logical necessities that have been dictated by various philosophers. Rather, the only 'necessity' is the logic of thought itself, which is such that there is vast dialectical space for freedom. The question, however, is whether such 'freedom' will truly make one free. It is perhaps instead the case that such openness will leave one actually trapped by the very dialectic that promised to make one free; after all, to have endless possibility for development and the inability to achieve it can very easily become a kind of existential bondage.<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-63311725029074271752013-03-09T20:20:00.001+00:002013-03-09T20:20:32.834+00:00Hegel... Arrghh...In case any of you are wondering what I'm working on these days, well, I've been reading a lot of Hegel, and trying to figure out what he's saying... This is not easy. Here's a sample of what I'm looking at (from Hegel's <i>Science of Logic</i>). I am developing my own interpretation of what he means, but if anyone wants to chime in with their own take on it, go ahead! :-) (There are, of course, already many commentaries on Hegel and a plethora of varying opinions...)<br />
<br />
"<i>Being, pure being</i> – without further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself and also not unequal with respect to another; it has no difference within it, nor any outwardly. If any determination or content were posited in it as distinct, or if it were posited by this determination or content as distinct from an other, it would thereby fail to hold fast to its purity. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. – There is <i>nothing</i> to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure empty intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or, it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate is in fact<i> nothing</i>, and neither more nor less than nothing.<br />
<br />
<i>Nothing, pure nothingness</i>; it is simple equality with itself, complete emptiness, complete absence of determination and content; lack of all distinction within. – In so far as mention can be made here of intuiting and thinking, it makes a difference whether something or <i>nothing</i> is being intuited or thought. To intuit or to think nothing has therefore a meaning; the two are distinguished and so nothing <i>is</i> (concretely exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being. – Nothing is therefore the same determination or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as what pure <i>being</i> is.<br />
<br />
<i>Pure being and pure nothing are therefore the same</i>. The truth is neither being nor nothing, but rather that being has passed over into nothing and nothing into being – 'has passed over', not passes over. But the truth is just as much that they are not without distinction; it is rather that <i>they are not the same</i>, that they are absolutely distinct yet equally unseparated and inseparable, and that <i>each</i> immediately <i>vanishes in its opposite</i>. Their truth is therefore this <i>movement</i> of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: <i>becoming</i>, a movement in which the two are distinguished, but by a distinction which has just as immediately dissolved itself."<br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-19483041527067211862013-02-24T20:32:00.003+00:002013-02-24T20:32:28.910+00:00And now for an abstract philosophical question...Is there such a thing as 'post-metaphysical' thought? Here is William Desmond's view, and I have to say, I think he's probably right:<br />
<br />
"It might be that certain forms of metaphysics are behind us but there is no post–metaphysical thinking, since all thinking is informed by fundamental senses of being which are at work whether we think about them or not. Being post-metaphysical without attention to these is being a poor metaphysician, not a post- metaphysician."<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-60661622735294862552013-01-28T20:36:00.001+00:002013-01-28T20:38:08.619+00:00Jacques Ellul on our conceptions of reality..."Truth is the absolute or eternal. We are not able even to approach its outskirts. We do not construct truth out of bits and pieces added to one another, so as to enable us to remove them and dismantle the construction. By means of language we transmit and understand this truth that is as tightly closed and solid as a dot, reliable as a map, translucent as a crystal, but hard as a diamond. We transmit it and even discern it only through language. Truth is connected to the word and communicated by it. That is, truth is communicated by the most uncertain means, the one most prone to variations and doubt, as we have seen -- by the word, that fragile thing that does not last, evaporating as soon as it has been said. Thus what we are surest of is connected with the most uncertain thing in existence; our most changeable means has to do with what is most certain.<br />
<br />
Now here is the amazing thing: this is a godsend for us. How could we live if our senses advised us that the reality in which we live does not really exist in the final analysis, that it is only a tangle of whirlwinds and illusions? How could I walk if my senses showed me nothing but emptiness in front of me? How could I eat if my senses showed me the utter unreality of what I am eating? Not that everything can be reduced to the impressions of my senses. That is not what I mean. My point is that sight and touch, the senses of certainty, give me the guarantee indispensable for living, concerning a milieu that is strange and foreign to me. My certainty is false as far as exact reality is concerned, but this certainty allows me to live."
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-19541682116973875062013-01-18T11:18:00.004+00:002013-01-18T11:18:37.376+00:00Well, it's a new year......and I've gotten off to a slow start blogging. I won't bore anyone with the details, but part of it involved a defective laptop. Anyway, the new term at Oxford is underway, and I don't have anything too exciting to mention (but everything's going well!). So, here's a little food for thought from the man himself, S.K. (from Concluding Unscientific Postscript)<br />
<br />
"The object of faith is the actuality of another person; its relation is an infinite interestedness. The object of faith is not a doctrine, for then the relation is intellectual, and the point is not to bungle it but to reach the maximum of the intellectual relation. The object of faith is not a teacher who has a doctrine, for when a teacher has a doctrine, then the doctrine is <i>eo ipso</i> more important than the teacher, and the relation is intellectual... But the object of faith is the actuality of the teacher, that the teacher actually exists. Therefore faith’s answer is... not in relation to a doctrine, whether it is true or not, not in relation to a teacher, whether his doctrine is true or not, but is the answer to the question about a fact: Do you accept as fact that he actually has existed? Please note that the answer is with infinite passion."
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-38307953456275371802012-12-27T20:24:00.002+00:002012-12-27T20:26:11.430+00:00The Laughter of Sarah...from Tomas Halik's <i>Night of the Confessor</i>:<br />
<br />
"The underlying mode of our faith, hope, and love is<i> patience</i>. Only when we truly fall silent will we be able to hear once more the voice that says to us: Fear not. I have conquered the world. I am the resurrection and the life. I am with you always, until the end of the age.<br />
<br />
Fine words, but empty promises? From behind the tent awning--and from deep within ourselves--comes Sarah's skeptical laugh. How could that be possible, seeing that we are not only adult already, but also too old for great expectations?<br />
<br />
'Why did Sarah laugh?' Doesn't she realize that there is '<i>nothing too marvelous</i>' for the Lord to accomplish? And Sarah lies, because she is afraid. Her laughter was also an expression of her fear of trusting. 'Yes, you did laugh,' the Lord insisted.<br />
<br />
You did laugh, the Lord tells us. But maybe He'll treat us the way He did our mother Sarah. Maybe our nervous laughter of skepticism and mistrust will be transformed into the happy laughter of those who have lived to see the fulfillment of His promises."<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-26704772471057282702012-12-18T18:39:00.000+00:002012-12-18T18:39:14.764+00:00The Season of Advent...It's been said many times over the past several days, but there is a very difficult tension at work in the recognition that we, as Christians, celebrate the coming of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnate, as the ultimate gift of grace, while also recognizing the immense suffering and evil that exists in our world, most recently made manifest in the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT.<br />
<br />
I'll try not to repeat what others have said, and I don't want to offer any platitudes or easy answers. But I do think that it is precisely this tension between grace and suffering (and let's be honest, people all over the world feel this, often much more often than we do in America, where we have so many material blessings and a great deal of security) which ought to remind us of the inextricable link between Christmas and Easter.<br />
<br />
I don't just mean that they are both ancient pagan holidays that Christians co-opted for their own religious calendar. I mean that you can't really understand the beauty of Christmas without Easter, and vice versa. Which means that we can't really see the fullness of the gift of joy that God provides without also recognizing the extent of the suffering and evil that we face in the world. Easter, after all, is a celebration of resurrection. But it is preceded by two days in which we acknowledge death and its inevitability in the world of all created things. It's a tension that apparently God Himself couldn't avoid, in that sense.<br />
<br />
I don't know exactly what it means for God's essence and character that both Christmas and Easter must take place. I don't know why we have to have birth, suffering, joy, death, and resurrection all together in the package of our existence. But I have to believe in the hope that God's final word is resurrection. Otherwise we are simply resigned to death. And that doesn't seem to be a situation that leads to hope at all. What's worth hoping for if death always has the last word? I hope for resurrection! If we're gonna be accused of 'wish fulfillment', let's at least wish big! ;-)<br />
<br />
That said, I hope we all take time to remember the pain that is all around us during this Advent season, and that we step out and into the lives of others as agents of joy and resurrection, never forgetting the tension that we face in so doing, but trusting in the hope of Christ's incarnation.<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-4935804901592453072012-11-23T11:56:00.002+00:002012-11-23T11:56:34.934+00:00Michel Serres on philosophers..."It is the function of the philosopher, the care and passion of the philosopher, to protect to the utmost the possible, he tends the possible like a small child, he broods over it like a newborn babe, he is the guardian of the seed. The philosopher is the shepherd who tends the mixed flock of possibles on the highlands, heavy ewes and shuddering bulls, the philosopher is a gardener, he crosses and multiplies varieties, he safeguards the vastness of the old-growth forest, he is on the watch for the inclemency of the elements, a carrier of new seasons of history and of duration, fat cows and lean cows, the philosopher is the shepherd of multiplicities.<br />
<br />
The philosopher... protects neither essence nor truth. It is the function of the politician to be right and rational, it is the function of the scientist to be right and rational; there are plenty of functionaries of the truth as it is, without adding more. The philosopher does not wrap himself up in truth as in breastplate or shield, he does not sing nor does he pray to allay nocturnal fears, he wants to let the possibles roam free. Hope is in these margins, and freedom."<br />
<br />
Michel Serres - "Genesis"Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-53814756236284567902012-11-16T17:26:00.000+00:002012-11-16T17:27:03.897+00:00"The fool has said in his heart..."At the risk of alienating everyone :-), I'm going to make what seems to me a statement of obvious truth:<br />
<br />
It is neither unreasonable nor foolish to believe in God, AND it is neither unreasonable nor foolish to be skeptical about God's existence.<br />
<br />
On the face of it, this perhaps seems like a contradictory statement. How can it be reasonable both to believe in God and to be skeptical of God's existence? Well, I don't want to get onto a rabbit trail right off the bat, but it all depends on how one defines 'reasonable'. And I am not defining that word in purely rational terms; in other words, I don't equate 'reasonable' with 'Reason'. Something can be perfectly reasonable even if it doesn't fit neatly into a logical equation or a statement of fact.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
For instance, even if I have experienced a terrible break in a friendship due to conflict of some kind, it may nevertheless be reasonable for me to expect that, given the circumstances, if I seek to mend the friendship, it will be restored. At the same time, however, it may also be reasonable for me to expect that, given the circumstances, my friend will not want to mend the friendship and it will not be restored. I can't know for sure what will happen, and there are reasonable arguments both ways.<br />
<br />
Now, this might make it sound as though I am appealing to experience as a kind of evidence, such that if I simply were able to develop a complete account of the empirically relevant data, it would reveal a pattern that would tell me which response from my friend is more likely, and thus will give me a method for discerning the most reasonable course of action. (i.e., if the probability is higher that the friendship will be restored, then it is more reasonable to pursue reconciliation.)<br />
<br />
I don't think this is actually possible, given the complexity of human interactions--there are simply too many factors to consider. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that sometimes we have to make a decision with the information we have, and often this involves treating some actions as more reasonable than others. But I suspect that such decisions have less to do with <i>genuine</i> reasonableness, and more to do with pragmatic responses which we then convince ourselves to be reasonable.<br />
<br />
But, even if we suppose that we <b>do</b> have enough evidence to determine that one decision is more reasonable than another, this doesn't mean there is no good reason for the other decision. In fact, to use the example above, it may be very reasonable to conclude: "I know there is a very high likelihood that this friendship will not be restored, but it is a virtuous thing to attempt, and to hope for, and so I will try, even if it doesn't work."<br />
<br />
All of this is meant to provide a bit of context for my initial statement. When it comes to the available evidence, it may be that some feel that they have a great deal of empirical and rational support for the belief that there is no God. Yet, they may recognize that there is something nevertheless very compelling about seeking God, and that it is certainly not unreasonable to hope in Christ in spite of the possibility that their belief might be mistaken.<br />
<br />
At the same time, however, it is not unreasonable for the non-theist to conclude that it is likely there is no God. A sincere Christian does not need to feel ashamed or tainted by admitting this, nor should they condemn anyone who feels compelled to draw such a conclusion.<br />
<br />
It is here that the verse quoted in my blog post heading (Psalm 14.1) has particular relevance, I think. Often it is interpreted as a way to point out the stupidity or evil of atheistic worldviews. And, there are probably atheists to whom the verse does in fact apply. But, the majority of atheists I know would not fall into that category. Why?<br />
<br />
Well, the key point, it seems to me, is the 'in his heart': what the verse seems to indicate (and a brief examination of commentaries seems to bear this out) is that the fool is someone who, because of their desire to be evil, wishes deep down that there isn't a God. That is, the fool <b>wills</b> that there not be a God, in the hope that such a willing matches up with reality.<br />
<br />
And, quite simply, most atheists I know are not like this. It's not that they really, really hope there isn't a God, because they love their lives of sin. It's that they have searched, and struggled, and considered the possibilities, and can't see how it makes sense that God exists. And such skepticism and doubt are not, in themselves, unreasonable. I assert that once believers in God are able to admit this, it frees them up to be both more humble in their interactions with unbelievers and more honest with themselves (and others) about their own faith.<br />
<br />
And, there is one final point I'd like to make about the fool: if it is true that the fool is one who secretly wishes that God does not exist, then it seems quite reasonable to conclude that we are<b> all </b>fools from time to time, for what is willful sin, if not the desire, in that moment, that God would not exist? And, it seems reasonable to say that we all sin willfully--I agree with Chesterton's statement (paraphrased) that sin is the only Christian doctrine that's fairly easy to prove, just by looking at the way people live.<br />
<br />
So, let's keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to call someone a fool for not believing in God. Chances are, we've all been in that state of mind more than we care to admit. And recognizing that belief in God is no simple task just might make it easier for us to foster the kinds of discussions that encourage unbelievers to consider belief as a viable option.<br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-44749134041396747572012-11-03T17:14:00.003+00:002012-11-03T17:14:23.337+00:00Cottingham on Trust...I've been reading a lot of Hegel lately, as I continue work on my dissertation. But Hegel hasn't inspired me to post anything on this blog yet (assuming I even understand what he's saying!). Rather, here is a quote from another book I'm reading, "The Spiritual Dimension" by John Cottingham. I like this one, and it's fairly straightforward. :-)<br />
<br />
"The unavoidable nature of our human predicament is that we can only learn through a certain degree of receptivity, by to some extent letting go, by reaching out in trust. This, after all, is how we began to learn anything as children, and this, though we may struggle to resist it, is how we have to be, as adults, if we are to continue growing towards the knowledge and love that are the most precious of human goods. The necessary trust, sadly, may be abused, for there are no guarantees. Just as the individual moral development of a child may go astray, as a result of trust given to those who promised love but delivered only selfishness, so in any other sphere (including that of organized religion) one will find many cases where trust is misplaced. But the primacy of praxis is in some sense a feature of the whole human condition: we learn to be virtuous, said Aristotle, by being trained in virtuous action before we reach the age of rational reflection. We learn how to grow morally by being immersed in a community before we fully understand what morality means. And we learn to trust by trusting. But in human life, there is no other way."<br />
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-12102951252108780402012-10-09T23:31:00.001+01:002012-10-12T11:08:12.274+01:00With fear and trepidation...I offer up the first 'demos' of some songs being recorded for the album I'm releasing sometime later this year. (Or early next year. Can't rush perfection... haha. Actually, I'm just so busy with other things that I don't know how quickly I can finish recording.) Lots to do still, but here is an idea of what to expect. Feedback appreciated, and the songs are free for the taking. But, if you'd like to support the recording process, you can donate a bit of cash to the cause. Thanks for indulging my attempts to be creative! :-)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://the-transient-signal.bandcamp.com/">http://the-transient-signal.bandcamp.com/</a><br />
<br />
or, if you prefer: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/thetransientsignal">https://www.facebook.com/thetransientsignal </a><br />
<br />Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-18046281669514776722012-09-26T13:42:00.001+01:002012-09-26T13:43:27.166+01:00Two posts in two days?!Well, sort of. :-) I noticed this article on a friend's Facebook page and decided it is worth re-posting. I am not a proponent of 'moral realism', and this article outlines one of the reasons why:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://catholicmoraltheology.com/mn-marriage-amendment-and-the-church-weve-already-lost/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mn-marriage-amendment-and-the-church-weve-already-lost">http://catholicmoraltheology.com/mn-marriage-amendment-and-the-church-weve-already-lost/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mn-marriage-amendment-and-the-church-weve-already-lost </a>Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8608925486225415836.post-69958905848445671892012-09-25T23:13:00.002+01:002012-09-25T23:14:48.718+01:00Kierkegaard on Christian 'primitivity'..."I could really be tempted to think that providence permits the scholarly, exegetical, and critical skepticism to get such a strong upper hand because providence is tired of the hypocrisy and all the mimicking which is carried on with the historical and historical proof and it wants to force men out into primitivity again. For primitivity, being obliged to be primitive, alone with God, without having others up front whom one mimics and appeals to—this men do not want at all. And with each century the historical millions and millions grow more and more numerous, and men also become more and more spiritless. Therefore it has pleased God that the critics who are degrading Christianity also get more and more power with the centuries."
Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02458231323263823715noreply@blogger.com0