Brother Millinerd,
In what sense does your position here--which I endorse with qualifications--still allow for this? Perhaps there are other paths to certainty besides the Cartesian model--paths that do not rely upon classical foundationalism and an idolatrous view of human reason.
And further, in what sense does the incarnation come to bear on the idea of certainty? In as much has the Son came in the likeness of sinful flesh, cloaking himself—indeed becoming one with—fallen humanity, are we to suppose that he too was less than absolutely certain regarding the core aspects of the faith? Did he also operate within the framework of a chastised epistemology and epistemic humility when it came to such things as the existence of God, etc.?
What say you?
The ability to make coherent statements about reality is one thing. It is a rather helpful capacity that we have been given, which the thinkers I referenced in this post seem interested in defending against its detractors in the academic world.
The "ability" however to know God that Hebrews 11:1 refers to is of course something different completely, having less to do with our given capacities of reason than with God who both initiates and sustains the miracle of faith.
"The truth concerning God, if left to human reason alone, would have appeared only to a few, and only after a long search, and even then mixed with many errors; yet all of man's well-being, which is in God, depends on knowledge of this truth. Thus, in order that this well-being should become known to men more commonly and more securely, it was necessary that they be instructed by divine revelation."
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1:1
And in regard to the inner workings of the mind of Christ, you'd have to ask a heretic. They have much more confidence in reason's ability to penetrate such mysteries than do I.
I love that light switch metaphor.
In another sense, though, maybe there's not only a "middle" road or position, but a better one altogether.
Descartes, the champ of METHOD, achieves his results by framing out--filtering--everything that didn't fit through his rigorous seive. And he did it to a degree unmatched in history. His contribution (rigor in method) found, of course, many applications. But I'd say that, in lots of ways, its' a good thing. It's what allows us today to distinguish b/t grandma's home remedy and real medicine. It's what allows us to perform accurate market research, and to build houses that are both efficient and lasting. Etc, etc.
The problem for me comes in this: amongst things he filtered out was concern for the broader host of issues and concerns that always found expression in some manner in earlier western philosophy (i.e., Greek thought). I'm thinking about things like the "good life" or "good society" serving as the controlling orientation for philosophical inquiry. (Socrates: knowledge pursued for it's own sake is an enterprise wholly lacking in virtue. So also Aristotle's concern for virtue, etc.)
From that angle, Descartes is problematic not for loving rigor in method (I mean, what artist can't embrace that?), but b/c his concern fo method became an obsession which consequently led him to *narrow* his focus to the point of framing out ethics, charity, virtue, community, wisdom and the like (or at best, he made these second class).
In other words, I have no problem w/ method, as a tool. When it becomes *the* tool, however, well, then, here comes the enola gay, cause what's to stop it?
I find it endlessly interesting that at the exact moment western society discovered the power of rigorous method to give us unprecedented power and control over the earth, our "philosophers" (like Descartes, then Locke, then Hume, etc.) jettisoned philosophy's traditional interest in virtue, the completion of the self, or forming the "good society". Put more simply: they divorced wisdom from knowledge. And as we all know from a million mundane situations in our lives, more power AND less responsibility = bad news.
Indeed. Some of the most terrifying encounters I have had came from reading the ambitions of world domination that show up in the primary sources here.
Enlightenment tools however do work well for some things, which is I suppose why the scientist's critique of postmodernity has been particularly devastating.
But Enlightenment was a disaster for things not best accessed through reason alone - things which the Enlightened unfortnuately took direct aim at:
"I have placed the main point of enlightenment - the escape of men from thier self-incurred tutelage - chiefly in matters of religion... because religous incompetance is not only the most harmful but also the most degrading of all."
-Immanuel Kant What is Enlightenment
To the extent that postmodernity has chastised this arrogance, and deconstructed the false stories that sought to replace Christianity, it was then good.
Go postmodernity! Ra ra.
But the solution to false stories is not no story but the true story.
Such arrogance never infected the true story expressed in genuine, apophatically sensitive orthodoxy properly understood... which is why I think it remains immune to postmodern critique.
But what about all the horrible things done in the name of the Jesus metanarrative? Yes they're uttelry condemnable, but why do I need second generation pomo theorists to tell me that (whose nihilism it is no secret leads to its own kind of violence) when I have the Bible?
From David's adultery to twice-sacked Jersualem to a crucified savior to the epistles aimed at the early church riddled with false teaching to humility being extolled as the chief virtue to the greater judgment awaiting Christians at the end of the age...
Christianity should do a pretty good job of deconstructing itself.
But the solution to false stories is not no story but the true story.
Man #1: "You didn't give the governor a HARUMPH!"
Man #2 (expression of schock): "HARUMPH! HARUMPH!!!"
And to you millinerd, for that nicely packed statement, I give you a stout HARUMPH. Coudln't agree more.
- kp -
(we still need to do lunch you busy chump!)
Anytime kp.
Commenting by HaloScan
