There's a long tradition in theology of quibbling about what are the most authoritative sources for Christian theology and practice. Generally the competitors are reason, experience, feeling, Scripture, Tradition, and other authorities (like the Pope). Different theologians rank these in different ways, and the way a particular theologian ranks them is almost always dramatically determinative for his/her theology.
I'd like to suggest that this whole argument is a category confusion. There can be no ranking of Scripture above reason, experience, and feeling because the exercise of these three faculties is logically prior to the acceptance and comprehension of Scripture. We accept Scripture as authoritative because we have had the experience of being told that it is authoritative, and because we have reflected on this and felt or concluded that it is true. We comprehend Scripture only when the experience of reading it gives rise to feeling and reflection on that experience. The same goes for other authorities, whether they be Tradition, the Pope, or the Hare Krishna: their contents can only be accepted by means of the exercise of the three basic faculties through which the world is known: experience, reason, and feeling.
In other words, experience, reason, and feeling are in a category completely their own: a category that logically precedes the other authorities that are typically proposed. So the argument that Scripture can somehow be ranked above reason or experience can only lead to absurdity. A building cannot destroy its own foundation without destroying itself. The building can be viable only to the extent that its foundation is viable.
5 comments:
I don't see how ranking scripture above experience, reason, and feeling leads to absurdity. While I don't think that experience, reason and feeling are to be discounted I do feel that something must serve as the basis of morality except experience, reason and feeling.
Personally I find comfort in thinking that an all knowing power can give guidance to us poor misguided humans as to what is the right way to live. I've always found C.S. Lewis' insight that all religions teach the same set of principles at their core. For example while religions disagree on how many spouses a person can have none teach that promiscuity is a good thing. This despite what the latest expert on Oprah says.
Hey, Max. Whatever ground you suggest for morality-- whether it be Scripture, divine command, eternal law, social contract, or evolutionary biology-- can only become known to us via experience, reason, and feeling. Our choosing from among the possible grounds occurs by means of the same faculties. So to speak of ranking something like Scripture above something like reason results in absurdity precisely because the former is merely an object of knowing, whereas the latter is an integral part of knowing itself. We could perhaps react to the known object by changing the way we reason, but any such change would itself be the result of rational reflection on that object, and presumably we would not make such a change unless we were convinced that the new mode of reasoning is more accurate than the old one. So the task before anti-rationalist theologians is not to establish the priority of Scripture over reason, but rather to convince us that their orthodox rules for reasoning produce more reliable results than the rules that are generally acceptable in the secular academy. Since the secular academy has given us computers and cell phones whereas orthodox thinking has given us sectarianism and the Magisterium, the task is nothing short of monumental.
I'm not saying that reason is not important, I'm just saying that I think the scriptures are more important in the field of morality. One of the results of rational thinking has been communism, and that has usually been an atheistic beliefe system, at least in the 20th and 21st century. Since it is atheistic it didn't rise from any scriptural or traditional thought processes. I would say that communism has been shown to be a moral and political failure in practice. I think whenever you get away from scriptural sources for morality you are in trouble no matter what reason says.
Perhaps reason leads some to accept the scriptures, and I believe that is my case, and probably a weakness in my case. However, I think people can be just as happy living by what the scriptures teach without reasoning why they are doing it.
Max,
I have to disagree with the idea that reason without Scripture leaves us with no morality. There are perfectly sound ways to ground morality besides the Scriptures. I particularly have in mind utilitarian ethical theory, but since you bring up "living by what the scriptures teach without reasoning why" I might add that in some cultures people live by (non-scriptural) social conventions without reasoning why; these social conventions are communicated to them through experience (just as Scripture is to you) and they take them on authority (just as you do Scripture).
In any case, my point is not so much about whether or not the Scriptures are valid as about the particular theological doctrine that Scripture is superior to reason. I think this is a category confusion, since reason is a basic and non-negotiable epistemological faculty whereas the Scriptures are merely objects upon which that faculty acts.
One could perhaps argue for a ranking of some sort among the three aforementioned faculties (experience, reason, and feeling). But I don't think that one could rank an object above the faculties that comprehend it.
We may be talking at cross purposes. I mentioned "scriptural or traditional thought processes" to guide a community because I don't think that a society needs to have only the Bible as it's source of moral authority. I don't disagree with your citing "utilitarian ethical theory" (although I had to google it to find out what you were talking about) as a way to run a society in theory. Two of my favorite philosophers are Bertrand (though I don't understand his Mathmatics) and Rand. Most atheists I've met have been very nice thoughtful people, and I've been treated better by atheists than I have by many Christians. The only question I have with those theories is would they work in practice? Some people say that communism is nothing more than the community described in Acts (Acts 4 or 5). However, whenever it is put into practice it has been a tragedy. Some people say that true communism has never been impliminted. Fine, but every variation tried has been a nightmare for those that live under it. Communism is the only effort that I know of where a society was based on a philosophy that lacked a god. (I'm talking about nations here, not small groups.)
I can't really question you if all you're making is a theological argument (lacking the tools or inteligence). I am glad that I live where Western Christianity (WC), particularly the Protestant type, is ascendant. In my view the WC theology gave rise to rationalism which allowed the sciences to florish (since I'm an engineer by training and a programmer by trade that's very important), as well as democracy. It didn't happen, and in my opinion couldn't happen, in places where Eastern Christianity was ascendant.
However, I think that the same process has led to the lessening of the place of scriptures as foundational and led to real atheism for the first time in history. (In the past being an atheist meant you didn't worship our god as opposed to you didn't believe in god period. That's why the Romans could call early Christians atheist.)
OK Chris I'll just admit that I think your views of the Bible are changing, and I find that worrying.
Post a Comment