This weekend I participated in a Facebook dialogue(s) concerning the issues of free will, determinism, and Christian theism. Groundbreaking, I know. I'm not sure any novel ideas were developed. I'm inclined to think that the dialogue will only be of personal reflective importance for those personally involved and a few others. It would be more work to try to turn the product into something generally useable than to just compose a new book. And, such a book is certainly already on the market.
But, I have a few take-aways which I don't want to forget. I spent hours refreshing that Facebook webpage, so I may as well put finger to key once more and digest it a bit.
First, I was heartened by the generally positive nature of the dialogue. No two of us dialogicians have identical perspectives on these issues, and some of us seem diametrically opposed. Further, our method of argument varies. Some take an analytic approach, formulating arguments which could be standardized and evaluated with symbolic formulae. Others tended to speak in Christian-ese, arguing from a global knowledge of the Bible. My approach was probably more of a grab bag, and tended to be more negative. I was reminded of the myth of the Tower of Babel, at which man, unified by a common tongue, sought to build a tower to heaven. God, in order to thwart this venture, confused their language. Not only did this confusion stop that tower in particular, but it guaranteed that humanity would never be able to build such a tower again. If you've ever tried to offer an apologetic for your own views, you know how difficult adequate argumentation can be. Some might even say it is impossible to purely communicate. The take-away for me on this point is that, however limited we humans may be in our use of language, there is still a bond of love amongst brothers which allows us to listen charitably. This mode of listening enables us to hear the best form of the argument being proposed, and seeks to test one's own ideas against the truth, whether it agree with our position or not. Several times one of use was brought to a place of having to pause and simply state that we didn't know how to answer this or that problem with our thinking. Sometimes the issue was skirted, sometimes the issue was kicked like a dead horse, but not always. We always were willing to stop the inner mob and try, as best as we could, to come back to the central issue. This was encouraging, and it gives me hope for the future of philosophy.
Second, I was perhaps disheartened by the circumstances of the dialogue. This will be a view to the critical nature of my soul. I don't only see the positives, but also the negatives which brought this circumstance about. Namely, that this dialogue took place on Facebook. I wondered several times as we went back and forth at how such an open dialogue would have been received at any serious institution. I was left to think that such a dialogue would rarely be encouraged because it didn't leave one with a conclusion of "the" position, but rather with a range of choices that one makes with his presuppositions (my take anyway). Depending on what you think is the core of the Christian message, you'll be determined (hehe) to take one view over another. I was glad that we were pretty honest about what that meant about how we view Scripture and the character of God, but I'm sad that it is seemingly taboo or verboten to be so honest in more established circles. And, perhaps this is what is lost in the effort to become "established" in the first place.
Also along this thread, it was bothersome to me that one of the group had actually gotten a book published on these issues but was perhaps the least informed about the philosophical import and historical precedence of those very issues. I do not mean to offend, and I certainly don't mean to appear jealous that a book has been published which didn't say everything that could be said or that I would have said. I think what bothered me has nothing to do with this individual at all, but with the system of education that produced his situation. His book is "out there" now, and it carries with it many "blurbs" of endorsement. But if I can judge the contents of the book (which I haven't read) solely by the ideas produced in the dialogue (perhaps fallacious), then I am left thinking that it is promoted as propaganda. The author didn't seem conversant on many crucial issues, and he offered at least one heinous caricature of John Calvin. If you're aware of the battle over these issues within evangelicalism, you'll perhaps see this as I see it. I'll just cut myself off there and say, at this point, the take away is that it is disheartening that these honest dialogues aren't more popular.
Third, I was inspired to undertake an inquiry into the nature of moral responsibility. I take a fairly hard deterministic view, and so my virtual loss at that point is that I must sacrifice a conventional view of moral responsibility. The rough sketch, as it is in my head, would not only make the God of Scripture more consistent ethically (in our eyes), but it would also right some wrongs that exist in our Judeo-Christian culture, especially in how we educate children. It may also have some impact on evangelical musings on economics and work.
Finally, I was struck by being characterized as being the Socrates of the group, the gadfly who didn't write anything down. I took this to heart. I am more often than not the one who can criticize what others have done, but offers no answers. Life is short. If I can't help but think, I ought to think lovingly in such a way as to benefit others as I am able. To do otherwise is not virtuous, but lazy.
__________
here's a link to the note on Facebook if you're just undeniably curious, although I am sure most who read this are already aware:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-lahm/free-will-and-that-sneaking-suspicion-youre-being-watched/10151363303389512
No comments:
Post a Comment