A Comment for Aaron the Aaronator
Before beginning, please read Aaron’s Blog “On Contempt for Theological Conviction” to be found at the Maranatha link to the right (dated 4/15/05). The conversation is there, so please post any comments to that site.
Aaron,
I believe that you are spot-on on a few of the points you make here.
It is true that the label "Christian" today does not have the same meaning that it did in the days of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. In the distant past, what it meant to be a Christian, what beliefs and creeds you would ascribe to, was well known. Since the Reformation, such a universal understanding has steadily blurred (although people have always held beliefs contrary to the main).
Even when all Christians were known by a unified "orthodoxy", it was not because each person swashed their way through the most pressing questions in life and the Gospel,all coming to the same conclusion. Many believed as they were told and built upon it.
But who told them? It would seem that at some point someone must have done some deep searching or had divine guidance for any dogma to have ever begun at all. So already most every system, whether new or old, seems to hold well to the arguement posed here against people of conviction. (That it must be sought out)
There are only a few ways someone can hold to any sort of theological belief. They might come to know directly, they may claim to be able to prove such a belief, or they may take such belief on the authority of others.
If we break down the third path even farther, we'll see that there are two ways that someone might have a certain belief on the authority of others. Either (1) many experts agree but the arguments itself is too difficult for the individual, or (2) if persons are known to the individual who are competent and trustworthy tell them that it is so. (These and the above paragraph are an adaptation from C.D. Broad)
Without some predefined, universal system, as we most certainly do not have, point (1) will not suffice. We are left only with point (2).
Not to sound too elitist, it is obvious that many Christians are not apt or willing enough to go through struggle and doubt to find an answer. Indeed most men find God and beliefs more easily in fixed traditional ordinances than in inner searching and striving. It is an unfortunate truth (can anyone say "coal-burner"?)
Without the above point (1), and the obvious dependence of many on point (2), shouldn't it be an absolute imperative for those competent and trustworthy people to have a firm grounding and conviction for their own beliefs? The very ones they are telling to others?
There is, however, a flip side to the argument, as far as I am concerned. It is worthy to note that it was times of greatest conviction, those pious times in the history of the Church, that we find its greatest iniquities. Strong religious convictions often lead to religious fervor and hasty action. Of course, I do not believe that by rule is must be so.
To your final point, as much as I may disagree with you at times, Aaron, I must agree here. Those who cry foul for the sake of crying foul, not offering consistent, well-thought opposing views, these people receive little respect from me, whether in theology, philosophy, or dare I say, even politics. =) (Hopefully, I am not one of these people now)
Aaron,
I believe that you are spot-on on a few of the points you make here.
It is true that the label "Christian" today does not have the same meaning that it did in the days of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. In the distant past, what it meant to be a Christian, what beliefs and creeds you would ascribe to, was well known. Since the Reformation, such a universal understanding has steadily blurred (although people have always held beliefs contrary to the main).
Even when all Christians were known by a unified "orthodoxy", it was not because each person swashed their way through the most pressing questions in life and the Gospel,all coming to the same conclusion. Many believed as they were told and built upon it.
But who told them? It would seem that at some point someone must have done some deep searching or had divine guidance for any dogma to have ever begun at all. So already most every system, whether new or old, seems to hold well to the arguement posed here against people of conviction. (That it must be sought out)
There are only a few ways someone can hold to any sort of theological belief. They might come to know directly, they may claim to be able to prove such a belief, or they may take such belief on the authority of others.
If we break down the third path even farther, we'll see that there are two ways that someone might have a certain belief on the authority of others. Either (1) many experts agree but the arguments itself is too difficult for the individual, or (2) if persons are known to the individual who are competent and trustworthy tell them that it is so. (These and the above paragraph are an adaptation from C.D. Broad)
Without some predefined, universal system, as we most certainly do not have, point (1) will not suffice. We are left only with point (2).
Not to sound too elitist, it is obvious that many Christians are not apt or willing enough to go through struggle and doubt to find an answer. Indeed most men find God and beliefs more easily in fixed traditional ordinances than in inner searching and striving. It is an unfortunate truth (can anyone say "coal-burner"?)
Without the above point (1), and the obvious dependence of many on point (2), shouldn't it be an absolute imperative for those competent and trustworthy people to have a firm grounding and conviction for their own beliefs? The very ones they are telling to others?
There is, however, a flip side to the argument, as far as I am concerned. It is worthy to note that it was times of greatest conviction, those pious times in the history of the Church, that we find its greatest iniquities. Strong religious convictions often lead to religious fervor and hasty action. Of course, I do not believe that by rule is must be so.
To your final point, as much as I may disagree with you at times, Aaron, I must agree here. Those who cry foul for the sake of crying foul, not offering consistent, well-thought opposing views, these people receive little respect from me, whether in theology, philosophy, or dare I say, even politics. =) (Hopefully, I am not one of these people now)
posted by Cogito at 1:05 PM
0 comments
