The Philosophical Policeman

[Linna Heartbooger]

"Let scripture interpret scripture" is a catchphrase with absolutely no meaning imo. Either you use a systematic unambiguous code or you use your brain, which will by default take your environment and context into account when you interpret anything. So it is either a set code or your mind that delivers the interpretation. Do you buy that premise?

Hrmmm... well, I think even catchphrases are open to a variety of interpretations.
See, with the way I understand "Let scripture interpret scripture," the dichotomy one would build would be more like:

• You can EITHER understand a sentence in the context of all the other statements that its speaker has made...
  OR you can use your brain to understand it.

(which is, of course, a false dichotomy)

But then, people's abuses of the authority of scripture while claiming to be using proper means of interpretation is not only frustrating to observe (understatement of the year?) but destructive to real people's lives and to communities.

And I'm guessing you've seen MORE than one example of that...

[Avatar]

Problem is, who gets to decide what the proper means of interpretation is?

Isn't it...well...open to interpretation?

--A

[ussusimiel]

I'll attempt a rus stance here. (Please remember that my own position is a melange new-age spiritualism mixed with a strong dash of the shamanic plus a tincture of reincarnation ).

Problem is, who gets to decide what the proper means of interpretation is?

Isn't this rus's point about Tradition. Tradition is the accumulation of interpretation over thousands of years. Within the Traditions of the established religions there is no room for personal interpretation because that is what you have religious scholars and clergy for. Once you exempt yourself from the Tradition, Chesterton's point is that there is no right interpretation and anything goes. Under these circumstances (if my understanding of the concept is correct) 'sola scriptura' has no more standing than any other interpretation that emanates from outside Tradition.

Once you place yourself outside of Tradition you then you lose all right to speak with 'authority' because what you are expressing is opinion and nothing more. 'Authority' comes with the thousands of years of accumulated wisdom. Once you accept the 'authority' of a Tradition then you accept it in its totality, it is not a-la-carte. And, in a way, if you agree with a lot of what a religion says but feel that you have the right to pick and choose then you are actually placing yourself in what might be called the modern 'Enlightenment' tradition which places 'authority' within the the individual.

Ironically, a wholly religious attitude could be placed squarely in a completely secular tradition. So, in a way, the existentialist and nihilist positions stand on a common ground with completely religious worldviews that are outside of Tradition.

(I'm using a small 't' for the modern tradition because of its much shorter history. If it stands the test of time it may come to merit a capital 'T' ).

u.

[Orlion]

Of course, the problem with that is that "Tradition" (notice the double quotes this time ) is not a mere accumulation of 'facts' (true or otherwise). It's also change. Change from believing in the humanity of Christ to his complete divinity, change to survive in a different land with different cultures... change that just comes about because that's what happens.

It isn't a mere thousand year collection of facts, nor has it been tested extensively to demonstrate its truthfulness (examples to the contrary seem to show that progress happens outside of this "Tradition"). If the Tradition is such, then I see no basis for anyone claiming authority as a result.

[Vraith]

I think I agree with O, if I'm reading it correctly, only more so:

The basis of the authority is a bunch of people who believed in witchcraft, and that the earth was the center of the universe.
As a matter of absolute fact it was known that everything did NOT revolve around us more than 2000 years before the church admitted it. Why the hell would anyone ever rely on the "Authority" of demonstrated liars? [the other alternative is they were to damn stupid to understand it, which might be worse].
Tradition, as "accumulated wisdom" is just as much a myth...only even more silly...as [completely out of context] "you can't fool me, from there on it's turtles all the way down."

[yea, U...not saying "U" believe it, I recognize a devil's advocate...though calling rus that would be taking the thing too far, so don't.]

[Orlion]

I think I agree with O, if I'm reading it correctly,

Sometimes I think you're the only one that understands me when I post in the Close

[Vraith]

I think I agree with O, if I'm reading it correctly,

Sometimes I think you're the only one that understands me when I post in the Close

Heh...well, we do seem locked in a mutual admiration thing over here every so often.
I'm tempted to call you "My big O" sometimes, but peeps [like my wife, for instance] might take it the wrong way...

[Avatar]

Exactly. At one time, the people with the "proper" interpretation were just people with another interpretation.

Their interpretation should have faced the same "negation" that modern interpretation faces.

--A

[ussusimiel]

[Continuing in my role of advocate of one sort or another ....]

Of course, the problem with that is that "Tradition" ..... It's also change.

Granted there is change but this is change that is sanctioned by 'Authority' and as you have illustrated it happens at a much slower pace than the 'progress' that happens outside of a 'Tradition' (single quotes as a compromise ).

nor has it been tested extensively to demonstrate its truthfulness

As to truthfulness, the only necessity is that a 'Tradition' be consistent within itself. It has no obligation to recognise any outside claims and if it does do so it will necessarily be on its own terms. (Observe the Catholic Church's stance on evolution as compared to the Evangelicals.)

The main point is that you are either within a 'Tradition' or not. The catch-all 'Christians' does not gather everybody equally. Those within 'Traditions', Orthodox, Catholic, Church of England will recognise each other much more readily than they will other Christian Churches because all of their roots join at some point back along the track of their 'Tradition'. They will recognise (if not accept) the 'Authority' of the other. As rus has pointed out previously, they may actually give more recognition to Islam than to other Christian Churches for the same reason.

'Authority' within a 'Tradition' is backed by thousands of years of documentation and scholarship, probably most especially the changes that occurred. (And none of it is open to individual interpretation.) Anything outside of a 'Tradition' will not have the same depth of backing.

To give a couple of examples of the benefits of 'Tradition', take the injunction against eating pork in Judaism and Islam. Both of these injunctions come from different roots (to the best of my knowledge) yet the result is the same; that in hot countries a meat that goes off rapidly becomes forbidden. (As an aside, lots of modern alternative diets advise against eating pork as it is seen as a 'dirty' meat.)

My other example is much more controversial as it has to do with marriage and fertility. The 'Traditional' injunction against having children outside of marriage while overtly looking like the exertion of control over sexuality is probably much more concerned with fertility. Thousands of years of experience have taught that where resources are limited if you do not control fertility then famine is likely and as a result society becomes threatened from within or without. While famine may no longer be an issue in modern Western societies issues such as 'single mothers', 'welfare', 'crime' and 'housing' can all be seen to be related to fertility. The point is that the concerns which 'Traditions' have addressed throughout their long history continue to be the concerns of modern societies because they are the core concerns of humanity: birth, fertility and death.

u.

[Orlion]

[Continuing in my role of advocate of one sort or another ....]

Of course, the problem with that is that "Tradition" ..... It's also change.

Granted there is change but this is change that is sanctioned by 'Authority' and as you have illustrated it happens at a much slower pace than the 'progress' that happens outside of a 'Tradition' (single quotes as a compromise ).

Another problem. If the 'Authority' is too incompetent/evil/arrogant/whatever, a change for the better, or a change towards truth, could be condemned. Thus, the 'Authority' hurts Tradition in that it is a direct variable in determining whether or not it is true.

nor has it been tested extensively to demonstrate its truthfulness

As to truthfulness, the only necessity is that a 'Tradition' be consistent within itself. It has no obligation to recognise any outside claims and if it does do so it will necessarily be on its own terms. (Observe the Catholic Church's stance on evolution as compared to the Evangelicals.)

This goes against what most 'Traditions' claim: that they have truth. Further, change during the course of 'Tradition' is inconsistent... and usually goes against the foundational beliefs of the 'Tradition'.

The main point is that you are either within a 'Tradition' or not. The catch-all 'Christians' does not gather everybody equally. Those within 'Traditions', Orthodox, Catholic, Church of England will recognise each other much more readily than they will other Christian Churches because all of their roots join at some point back along the track of their 'Tradition'. They will recognise (if not accept) the 'Authority' of the other. As rus has pointed out previously, they may actually give more recognition to Islam than to other Christian Churches for the same reason.

'Authority' within a 'Tradition' is backed by thousands of years of documentation and scholarship, probably most especially the changes that occurred. (And none of it is open to individual interpretation.) Anything outside of a 'Tradition' will not have the same depth of backing.

To give a couple of examples of the benefits of 'Tradition', take the injunction against eating pork in Judaism and Islam. Both of these injunctions come from different roots (to the best of my knowledge) yet the result is the same; that in hot countries a meat that goes off rapidly becomes forbidden. (As an aside, lots of modern alternative diets advise against eating pork as it is seen as a 'dirty' meat.)

My other example is much more controversial as it has to do with marriage and fertility. The 'Traditional' injunction against having children outside of marriage while overtly looking like the exertion of control over sexuality is probably much more concerned with fertility. Thousands of years of experience have taught that where resources are limited if you do not control fertility then famine is likely and as a result society becomes threatened from within or without. While famine may no longer be an issue in modern Western societies issues such as 'single mothers', 'welfare', 'crime' and 'housing' can all be seen to be related to fertility. The point is that the concerns which 'Traditions' have addressed throughout their long history continue to be the concerns of modern societies because they are the core concerns of humanity: birth, fertility and death.

u.

That's the thing: 'Tradition' doesn't care about truth. They don't recognize another Tradition if it happens to say something true, they recognize it if it follows somewhat from their tradition. Benefits from traditions also seem to be found only after the fact, if any exist. I don't think any of these traditions were started because people got together and had a logical discourse weighing pros and cons... most probably had to do with power: pig farming is cutting into the priest's goat farming! Ban it! If we don't regulate sex, someone might have sex with that girl I like before I do! *gasp!*

Ultimately, Tradition and Authority have to deal with the problem that they are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, but with their self preservation.

[Avatar]

Ultimately, Tradition and Authority have to deal with the problem that they are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, but with their self preservation.

Got it in one.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Ultimately, Tradition and Authority have to deal with the problem that they are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, but with their self preservation.

Got it in one.

[ussusimiel]

[Ultra-rus mode]

Ultimately, Tradition and Authority have to deal with the problem that they are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, but with their self preservation.

Wrong. 'Tradition' is concerned with protecting society and more generally humanity (protecting itself in the process is obviously necessary).

u.

[Orlion]

[Ultra-rus mode]

Ultimately, Tradition and Authority have to deal with the problem that they are not concerned with the pursuit of truth, but with their self preservation.

Wrong. 'Tradition' is concerned with protecting society and more generally humanity (protecting itself in the process is obviously necessary).

u.

You're having too much fun with this But as a rebuttal, how is that 'claim' any different from a claim made by a tyrannical ruler, oppressive communism, and just plain oppressive governments?

[Fist and Faith]

Of course *"'Tradition'"* is concerned self-preservation. That's the entire point. Perhaps the very definition of the term.

And yes, with protecting society. That is, with the society defined by those traditions.

Truth? Well, Tradition - any tradition, I think - considers itself to be the holder of Truth. Which it thinks needs to be preserved. But now we're in the arena of opinion. I think X is true, and Y is false. Others think the reverse. I want to start or continue traditions that push X, and do away with traditions that push Y. Others want to do the reverse.

[Vraith]

Of course *"'Tradition'"* is concerned self-preservation. That's the entire point. Perhaps the very definition of the term.

And yes, with protecting society. That is, with the society defined by those traditions.

Truth? Well, Tradition - any tradition, I think - considers itself to be the holder of Truth. Which it thinks needs to be preserved. But now we're in the arena of opinion. I think X is true, and Y is false. Others think the reverse. I want to start or continue traditions that push X, and do away with traditions that push Y. Others want to do the reverse.

The problem comes with the warping by those who have/want power for itself.
There's a fair amount of "tradition" that made perfect [and necessary] sense in origin. Like the teaching/training/rites of passage for hunters...this was a passing on of methods of survival. And it was concerned with true. It's when it becomes Tradition, claims Truth, that it goes wrong...in many ways and cases, it becomes anti-survival.

[Fist and Faith]

Fair point. Could be some things that were Tradition, and True, are no longer either.

[ussusimiel]

You're having too much fun with this But as a rebuttal, how is that 'claim' any different from a claim made by a tyrannical ruler, oppressive communism, and just plain oppressive governments?

I know, my inner Authoritarian is showing

Again, it has to do with the length of time that the 'Traditions' have on their side. They have stood the test of time. And personally, this is one of the things that I have learned from rus. I was coming around to it anyway, but reading the material that he posted clarified it for me. The major concerns of humanity: birth, fertility and death have not gone away with all the 'progress' that has been made. (You have been posting on the thread about abortion in the Tank, so you know how settled that issue is. (Click here for that thread.))

Because they are larger than the individual, these issues do not go away. They are crucial to society and to humanity as a species. If I want to get mystical about it, they are about our relationship with the universe. To think that I, as a fairly ordinary (if a member of an 'elite' forum Ask Prebe!) person, could in one short lifetime gather together and absorb all the necessary knowledge to be able to answer the questions that these issues raise smacks (from the perspective of a 'Tradition') of arrogance and hubris.

Truth? Well, Tradition - any tradition, I think - considers itself to be the holder of Truth. Which it thinks needs to be preserved. But now we're in the arena of opinion. I think X is true, and Y is false. Others think the reverse. I want to start or continue traditions that push X, and do away with traditions that push Y. Others want to do the reverse.

Welcome Fist! If I can start getting under your skin my work here will be done

I think I understand what you mean and it's definitely true that it's a matter of opinion or accident of birth or geography. But, what I said in a previous post holds; 'Traditions' have a certain regard for each other that they do not have for young or newly started 'traditions'. The non-religious 'tradition' that many people here on the Watch are part of is 'The Enlightenment' which is a mere 400 years old. (I'm a member of this tradition myself, BTW.)

It's when it becomes Tradition, claims Truth, that it goes wrong...in many ways and cases, it becomes anti-survival.

This is interesting and it ties in with shamanism because in societies where there was a shaman his/her job was to mediate between the 'other' world and the world the society existed in. I think it may be when knowledge of the 'other' world is used for material gain that power becomes an issue. While shamans may not have ruled their societies they did wield a lot of influence. 'Traditions' such as Catholicism and Islam have done untold damage when they have exerted excessive material power.

u.

[Vraith]

I was going to try and take a little bite out of you by saying "show me a Tradition that has survived without change [that's what big T tradition is], and I'll show you a history of tyranny, suppression, and murder....the last death being that of the tradition."
But thankfully, you bit yourself with:

'Traditions' such as Catholicism and Islam have done untold damage when they have exerted excessive material power.

u.

But I think the spiritual power lead to just as much damage or more. The Catholic until fairly recently [historically recently], Islam struggling with it now.

[Fist and Faith]

But, what I said in a previous post holds; 'Traditions' have a certain regard for each other that they do not have for young or newly started 'traditions'. The non-religious 'tradition' that many people here on the Watch are part of is 'The Enlightenment' which is a mere 400 years old. (I'm a member of this tradition myself, BTW.)

I suppose. But that and $2.26 will get me a large coffee at DD.