The Philosophical Policeman

[rusmeister]

aliantha tried harder than anyone else has, but he doesn't work for her, either.

He certainly didn't lead me to Jesus Christ, if that's what this is all about.

I've explained all this before, more than once. But for the newbies:

I read nearly all of Dickens back in the day (*not* Dickens' day -- I'm not *that* old! ), so Chesterton's style doesn't throw me as much as it might other folks who stick to more modern writers.

No, my problem with Chesterton is when he goes off on tangents to try to respond to every possible objection to his points. I'm usually struck by some huge, gaping hole in one of these tangents -- a hole which then calls into question, for me, the rest of his argument.

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to point out these legendary 'holes' to me. The fact that everyone says, "No, I'm not going to do that" leaves me doubting their claims of the very existence of holes, at least as they imagine them.

And too, he's speaking to his in-crowd (i.e., people who are already Christians). So he makes jokes that people of other faiths would find, if not insulting, then at least ignorant.

Usually he is NOT speaking to his "in-crowd" as you call it. As a general journalist who wrote for secular papers like The Illustrated London News for much of his career, he addressed general audiences with a solid awareness that they had ceased to a great extent to be Christian. And the real test is to find these people of other faiths who actually interacted with him - they are on record and a surprising number are Jewish, btw - rather than just picking up a surface impression from a quick casual reading. And I do see a huge difference between traditional faiths such as Islam and Judaism, and completely untraditional beliefs such as neo-paganism, so that would really be a separate discussion. That someone TODAY might find something insulting that no one did 75 or 100 years ago is another conversation.

Speaking specifically to his sending you to the encyclopedia, rus: Granted that Chesterton had more of a classical education than is generally provided in our modern schools. But also, he was a journalist who was immersed in the news of the day. Stuff that we consider history now was up-to-the-minute topical for him. He could expect that his readers had a working knowledge of all of this stuff, because for them it had just happened. I guarantee you that if somebody runs across the Tank in a hundred years, they too will be running to the encyclopedia to figure out what we were arguing about.

And to this I have to say no, no, no. When I say that I am sent to the encyclopedia, it is not merely for Edwardian references, but for references to long before his time, and in this the entire Watch put together does not hold a candle to GKC. I agree completely that nearly everyone here is quite modern with a firm grasp on current events. I am extremely doubtful about the number who also have such a thorough and well-founded historical vision. The idea that he was merely a man of his time I completely deny, and say that no one who has NOT read him extensively can even dispute with me. You have to take my word for it until you have read as much. And when you do, while I am sure you would likely still disagree with the ideas, you would not be able to deny the fact of his enormous grasp of literature and history that extended far beyond his time.

And no, rus, I'm not going to find another copy of TEM and post specific examples, so that you can tell me how I misunderstood GKC. And I'm not interested in reading any more Christian apologetics, just as you aren't interested in reading any Neopagan apologetics (such that exist -- there's not much of it, partly because Neopagans don't recruit).

On specific examples, as I said above on the general failure (which extends to nearly all, and is not exclusive to you) to show any holes at all. (And I think a few can be found - I certainly have. But over dozens of books and other works, hundreds of essays, etc, there are darn few. If the guy was really wrong there ought to be a lot more in all that prolificity.)

And for those who haven't been following, I'll iterate that Neopagan defenses are quite modern; most cooked up within the last 40 years, with little to nothing of any sort before that. Lacking primary sources, those defenses must necessarily be the inventions of the modern professors without historical backing. That it be fair or unfair as you once complained is irrelevant - it is nevertheless the considering of the historical record that is, not of the one that isn't. I realize that that assertion won't cheer you, but it is the single most important fact about neopagan scholarship - that it cannot, by definition, be terribly scholarly. So while I understand why we might not be interested in reading each other's apologetics, I think my reasons stand on much better intellectual ground. I'm not going to go ten rounds on that with you; I'm saying it once for newer readers, which I think enough. I know you will never agree, and am sorry that we cannot see eye-to-eye on that. But it is from that that I see the whole question.

[rusmeister]

Just reading a bit of Orthodoxy and I came across an interesting point that chimes with something that I have tried to articulate before. It goes something like this: as I have journeyed in my life I have become more and more aware of the narrowness of Science (and by extension, Reason).

When I began to study Philosophy in my first year of Humanities in college I almost walked out of the first lecture (I was 28 at the time) because I realised that none of the questions that I was interested in were going to be addressed. It seemed as if the first thing that had to be made clear was the kinds of questions that a philosopher wasn't allowed to ask. This seemed as strange and disappointing to me then as it does now.

I understand better now that Philosophy is in essence the study of Reason, but for me that seems like trying to do maths with words (and if I wanted to do maths why wouldn't I study Mathematics). Mostly, what I don't understand is why supposed truth-seekers (which is what I had mistakenly thought academic philosophers were) would rule out anything that might give some access to or intimation of the truth.

This is not an argument for any particular belief religious or otherwise, it is an attempt to show that ruling out something because it doesn't seem reasonable is, IMO, not the best way to seek the truth.

u.

I have a great deal of sympathy for this post, which mirrors a lot of my own experience. I'd say that you had a firmer grasp of philosophy in your college class(es) than I did - I was completely ignorant and looking to be told what it was.

supposed truth-seekers (which is what I had mistakenly thought academic philosophers were)

This hits the nail on the head. Just add to that what is true should logically be important - important enough to teach - and yes, dogmatically. As has been said, a teacher who is not being dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.

One thing we might differ on (I'm not sure here) is that truth must not oppose reason, but in some way be consistent with it. Otherwise we would have to try to grapple with ideas such as of a god whose idea of good is our evil and so on. So whatever truth or god (God) there is must be consistent with what IS, and not completely contradicting it. Reason has a place in faith, and while one may live without reason - and if they hold the right truth, be in other ways out of touch with reason as such, one cannot hold that reason is the opposite of truth or that they must deny each other. There's a difference between being non-rational and being irrational.

[Fist and Faith]

What I said was that there is nothing to say in the end to someone for whom truth is merely taste, for whom the final philosophy is "Whatever floats your boat". It represents indifference, rather than concern or love. We do not "tolerate" what we love.

It reminds me of "When Harry Met Sally" when Harry was talking about his various "girlfriends" and walking out on them and he said something to the effect that the sex means nothing, and Sally raged back at him "It means EVERYTHING!!!". So it is with truth.

I have tried to make clear that the important thing is not the man Chesterton, but the ideas - which I now express and are (to a great extent) mine. So dismiss Chesterton and respond to the ideas - for I am saying them.

When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies,
their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries
might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so
important that every one ought to bear independent testimony.
The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it
cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men
loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back
into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been
so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when,
for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction
meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion.
Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it.
Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions,
has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed.

This is MY idea and I am saying it, yet when I say it, you say, "Why do you keep talking about Chesterton?" I am saying this. ME.
I can express the idea in different words but there seems to be no need. It is clear as is.

But to you it really is a fish unfit for eating. You, who asked, "Why must we fight?; why can't we just acknowledge the validity of each other's world view?" it doesn't matter. My truth for me is as good as your truth for you.

Only it's not. It means EVERYTHING. Your worldview as thoroughly negates my expression of it as mine does yours. They are mutually exclusive and incompatible. There can be no ecumenism that involves the slightest concession of dogmatic points.

"Whatever floats your boat" is a disparaging way of referring to my worldview. THIS is the truth I'm fighting for:

Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God, and so little on the experience.

In fact, you place so little value on experience that when what you experience of God differs from what you’ve heard of God, you automatically discard the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around.

Your experience and your feelings about a thing represent what you factually and intuitively know about that thing. Words can only seek to symbolize what you know, and can often confuse what you know. -- Conversations With God

So I want to remind you that every entry in this book is at best an asymptotic shot at life, and at my life, not at yours. If my words affirm you, then savor them for the moment; but if they cause you to distrust your own experience, spit them out. You are the only authority on what is good for you, and once you have seen this, you will feel an enormous peace and freedom. -- Hugh Prather

This worldview does allow for yours. It makes perfect sense that people have yours. It's just unfortunate that yours insists on telling everyone else that theirs is wrong. But, of course, yours doesn't. You do. Many Christians teach by example. By living their faith; by sharing it.

Now as to Chesterton the writer, that is a different kettle of fish. That is what I was responding to Orlion about. I do not say that you MUST read Chesterton. I DO say that you cannot possibly have an informed opinion of the man that a large body of factual knowledge and scholarship contradicts. So you've read a book (Or at least Ali has). That does not translate into an authoritative voice that can say that he is "bad" (what an indefinite characterization!) or even a Wal-Mart version of Mark Twain. You don't know about the Marconi scandal, you don't know about the letters from Wells and Shaw, you have read less than 0.5% of his works - and so you simply cannot come off with such pronunciations. The most you can do is say, "I feel that book (or chapter) was...". THAT I can accept. But to think you have acquired a complete sense of the man and so can pigeon-hole him is serious self-deception.

Maybe so. But if you didn't insist that we all read everything he wrote, this wouldn't matter. The tiny fraction of his works that I've read have told me that a) his basic assumptions are wrong (imo), and b) he is the wordiest writer I've ever run across. If you start reading a particular author's works, and you don't like it, you tend to not go on and read all you can of that author. I'm not going to embrace him. Most here have said the same thing. But you continue to try to force us to. I'd probably be willing to bet that you've written more posts defending Chesterton than you have your faith. Why are we always talking about Chesterton?

www.youtube.com/user/TheaterOfTheWordIn ... DR4XoU3KTs
(you can fast-forward to 1:26 if you want)

www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176028

Lines to a Don
By Hilaire Belloc

Remote and ineffectual Don
That dared attack my Chesterton,
With that poor weapon, half-impelled,
Unlearnt, unsteady, hardly held,
Unworthy for a tilt with men—
Your quavering and corroded pen;
Don poor at Bed and worse at Table,
Don pinched, Don starved, Don miserable;
Don stuttering, Don with roving eyes,
Don nervous, Don of crudities;
Don clerical, Don ordinary,
Don self-absorbed and solitary;
Don here-and-there, Don epileptic;
Don puffed and empty, Don dyspeptic;
Don middle-class, Don sycophantic,
Don dull, Don brutish, Don pedantic;
Don hypocritical, Don bad,
Don furtive, Don three-quarters mad;
Don (since a man must make an end),
Don that shall never be my friend.

* * *

Don different from those regal Dons!
With hearts of gold and lungs of bronze,
Who shout and bang and roar and bawl
The Absolute across the hall,
Or sail in amply billowing gown
Enormous through the Sacred Town,
Bearing from College to their homes
Deep cargoes of gigantic tomes;
Dons admirable! Dons of Might!
Uprising on my inward sight
Compact of ancient tales, and port
And sleep—and learning of a sort.
Dons English, worthy of the land;
Dons rooted; Dons that understand.
Good Dons perpetual that remain
A landmark, walling in the plain—
The horizon of my memories—
Like large and comfortable trees.

* * *

Don very much apart from these,
Thou scapegoat Don, thou Don devoted,
Don to thine own damnation quoted,
Perplexed to find thy trivial name
Reared in my verse to lasting shame.
Don dreadful, rasping Don and wearing,
Repulsive Don—Don past all bearing.
Don of the cold and doubtful breath,
Don despicable, Don of death;
Don nasty, skimpy, silent, level;
Don evil; Don that serves the devil.
Don ugly—that makes fifty lines.
There is a Canon which confines
A Rhymed Octosyllabic Curse
If written in Iambic Verse
To fifty lines. I never cut;
I far prefer to end it—but
Believe me I shall soon return.
My fires are banked, but still they burn
To write some more about the Don
That dared attack my Chesterton.

You don't have to like him. But to pretend that he is admired only by a few narrow religious fanatics, to pretend that he has no appeal to the broader intellect, is to ignore not only his considerable influence and the praise he has received for it, but the existence of active support in societies that dwarf similar praise and tribute to an author like SRD.
www.chesterton.org/wordpress/local-societies/
And that is only in the US. I am aware of dozens more around the world.
Just Google "Chesterton Society".

Donaldson, much as I enjoy him, simply does not command this level of interest. That there IS such a level of interest strongly suggests that there is something to be interested in, as I will cheerfully concede for SRD and the existence of this site. But I equally insist it to be true for GK Chesterton. The issue of what those authors deal with is another matter, though, and I will not concede them to be equal.

What we have in common is that we have found authors that give us a lot and are worth our time, that other people do not read because the prose seems difficult or because they are turned off by a rape scene at the beginning of the story or whatever, and we would ask them to look deeper and not judge so quickly.

If what they deal with is the most important thing, I'd think you'd try to find ways to discuss it that we will respond to in positive ways. But you will not. Because our opinion of Chesterton is the most important thing to you, and you will not accept low opinions. That's why we're still talking about him. Years later, we're exactly where we were, not discussing worldviews nearly as much as we're arguing about the glory of Chesterton. Do you expect your approach to everything to change our minds about your and our worldviews? Do you expect it to change our opinion of Chesterton?

[aliantha]

And for those who haven't been following, I'll iterate that Neopagan defenses are quite modern; most cooked up within the last 40 years, with little to nothing of any sort before that. Lacking primary sources, those defenses must necessarily be the inventions of the modern professors without historical backing.

And I will observe once more, for the newbies, that Christianity was once a new religion as well -- and just like Neopaganism today, Christianity synthesized parts of religions that came before into a new one. And by the year 40 A.D., the New Testament hadn't even been written yet, let alone codified and commented on. To reject a new religion *because* it's new is really kind of ridiculous.

Let's chat again in a couple of centuries and see which of our religions has stood the test of time.

[rusmeister]

Testing this atomic browser...

1) your world view allows for mine as something not true for you, which is what mine insists that it is. It is true for everyone, regardless of what "pleases" or "works for" them. So no, your world view cannot accept mine, for if it does, it must automatically reject wha.t you have heretofore been fighting for. The Orthodox worldview is incompatible with the ideas in "Conversations With God".
I tell you what is true. You can obsess over it making you wrong, but that is the flip side of any claim of truth. Your world view DOES declare mine to be wrong, for mine does say that there is only one way to the Father, that there are not many ways. I'd have to footnote this with observations clarifying that we do not limit God's grace, but that we do have to go with what He told us, and are responsible for what we know, just so you don't think I'm saying that a person must "join my religion" to be saved.

You seem to be in a constant state of shock over the idea of being wrong. - over an implication that your ideas must be wrong. Me, I take it completely in stride and it troubles me not a whit. I EXPECT you to say I'm wrong. That's what disagreement and debate are made of. This isn't "Kumbaya" around a campfire. It's life and death, and there are stakes both in this world and in our eternal
souls. So somebody MUST be wrong. Why does that bother you so much?

Lastly, I've been trying to say that these two separate issues are not one and the same issue, as you treat them.
Thesis one: Chesterton spoke many great and true things. He was not the first or the last, but said them rather better than most. I say those things now. When I say them now, you try to treat them as merely statements of a dead author, as if I am not saying those things myself and therefore as if you have no need to respond to them.

Thesis two: Chesterton was a truly great man in many respects. This is a matter that requires personal learning and knowledge to be able to dispute. Yet you dispute those respects on almost no basis whatsoever. Don't read him. Fine. Cut off your nose to spite your face. But if I say something good about him, don't come flying
in to shoot it down until you've read his bio and acquired a broader familiarity with his works.

[ussusimiel]

But that's not what it is [philosophically speaking...heh] for, at least not its entirety [some specializations are]...although that vision of it is why someone as smart as Hawking can say basically [paraphrasing] "philosophy is dead, and a good thing cuz it's stupid." It does, of course, have to deal with what reason is, how it works, etc...but only because it is looking to fill the territory between the factual [which makes no value claims] and the valuable in the human experience [which in its purest forms, though rarely discussed/isolated, makes no fact claims].

I understand that, however, the mode of Philosophy, by its very nature, is reason. It is the ground it stands on, the air it breathes and the laws it proceeds by. Anything that cannot be embraced by reason cannot be part of Philosophy. I admire the relentless pursuit of truth within reason that Philosophy engages in. Its rigour and consistency are why it is so valuable. And it's not enough. For me, other ways of knowing are necessary to begin to understand all of what it means to be human.

On another tack. After engaging with some of the Chesterton material a thought ocurred to me about another difference between Tradition and the Modern. In Tradition the great forces that shape our lives: birth, fertility and death are treated with as vital and so hedged around with laws and ritual. Tradition recognises that in the face of these forces we are largely powerless. Strange as it might seem there is actually a humility about Tradition in relation to them.

The Modern, however, has a different attitude. Through science, technology and reason there is a constant attempt to manage and control these forces. Regardless of how much more we know of them, how much more we attempt to manage and control them the power of birth, fertility and death inexorably shape the lives we lead. In the face of life, the Modern refuses to bow down and much angst ensues.

IMO, in this case the humility of Tradition is actually a more accurate assessment and response to the facts of our existence than the Modern.

u.

[rusmeister]

But that's not what it is [philosophically speaking...heh] for, at least not its entirety [some specializations are]...although that vision of it is why someone as smart as Hawking can say basically [paraphrasing] "philosophy is dead, and a good thing cuz it's stupid." It does, of course, have to deal with what reason is, how it works, etc...but only because it is looking to fill the territory between the factual [which makes no value claims] and the valuable in the human experience [which in its purest forms, though rarely discussed/isolated, makes no fact claims].

I understand that, however, the mode of Philosophy, by its very nature, is reason. It is the ground it stands on, the air it breathes and the laws it proceeds by. Anything that cannot be embraced by reason cannot be part of Philosophy. I admire the relentless pursuit of truth within reason that Philosophy engages in. Its rigour and consistency are why it is so valuable.
And it's not enough. For me, other ways of knowing are necessary to begin to understand all of what it means to be human.

On another tack. After engaging with some of the Chesterton material a thought ocurred to me about another difference between Tradition and the
Modern. In Tradition the great forces that shape our lives: birth, fertility and death are treated with as vital and so hedged around with laws and ritual. Tradition recognises that in the face of these forces we are largely powerless. Strange as it might seem there is actually a humility about Tradition in relation to them.

The Modern, however, has a different attitude. Through science, technology and reason there is a constant attempt to manage and control these forces. Regardless of how much more we know of them, how much more we attempt to manage and control them the power of birth, fertility and death inexorably shape the lives we lead. In the face of life, the Modern refuses to bow down and much angst ensues.

IMO, in this case the humility of Tradition is actually a more accurate assessment and response to the facts of our existence than the Modern.

u.

That's an excellent insight and that last part is a summation I hadn't thought of.

[Orlion]

But that's not what it is [philosophically speaking...heh] for, at least not its entirety [some specializations are]...although that vision of it is why someone as smart as Hawking can say basically [paraphrasing] "philosophy is dead, and a good thing cuz it's stupid." It does, of course, have to deal with what reason is, how it works, etc...but only because it is looking to fill the territory between the factual [which makes no value claims] and the valuable in the human experience [which in its purest forms, though rarely discussed/isolated, makes no fact claims].

I understand that, however, the mode of Philosophy, by its very nature, is reason. It is the ground it stands on, the air it breathes and the laws it proceeds by. Anything that cannot be embraced by reason cannot be part of Philosophy. I admire the relentless pursuit of truth within reason that Philosophy engages in. Its rigour and consistency are why it is so valuable.
And it's not enough. For me, other ways of knowing are necessary to begin to understand all of what it means to be human.

On another tack. After engaging with some of the Chesterton material a thought ocurred to me about another difference between Tradition and the
Modern. In Tradition the great forces that shape our lives: birth, fertility and death are treated with as vital and so hedged around with laws and ritual. Tradition recognises that in the face of these forces we are largely powerless. Strange as it might seem there is actually a humility about Tradition in relation to them.

The Modern, however, has a different attitude. Through science, technology and reason there is a constant attempt to manage and control these forces. Regardless of how much more we know of them, how much more we attempt to manage and control them the power of birth, fertility and death inexorably shape the lives we lead. In the face of life, the Modern refuses to bow down and much angst ensues.

IMO, in this case the humility of Tradition is actually a more accurate assessment and response to the facts of our existence than the Modern.

u.

That's an excellent insight and that last part is a summation I hadn't thought of.

I'd say that it is the better form Tradition (or the Modern) can take shape. But just because someone adheres to 'Tradition' (quotes to refer to it in a general sense) doesn't mean there won't be a refusal to bow down and ensuing angst. I've known several 'Tradition' followers that will use ritual in much the same way your 'Modern' will use medicine to cling to life and change fates. Does that mean the 'Tradition' is at fault, or the follower? I'd make the claim it's the follower in both the Traditional and the Modern sense that creates this disconnect in most cases.

[ussusimiel]

I'd say that it is the better form Tradition (or the Modern) can take shape. But just because someone adheres to 'Tradition' (quotes to refer to it in a general sense) doesn't mean there won't be a refusal to bow down and ensuing angst. I've known several 'Tradition' followers that will use ritual in much the same way your 'Modern' will use medicine to cling to life and change fates. Does that mean the 'Tradition' is at fault, or the follower? I'd make the claim it's the follower in both the Traditional and the Modern sense that creates this disconnect in most cases.

Agreed. And I would go further and say that good followers in either thought/belief system will be closer to each other, in terms of how they live, than self-serving/hypocritical followers of their own ilk.

The difference for me is breadth; what is allowed to be engaged with. The Modern decided (for good reasons, mostly to do with power) that the Traditional was flawed. However, casting the whole lot aside was a mistake, IMO.

u.

[Orlion]

I'd say that it is the better form Tradition (or the Modern) can take shape. But just because someone adheres to 'Tradition' (quotes to refer to it in a general sense) doesn't mean there won't be a refusal to bow down and ensuing angst. I've known several 'Tradition' followers that will use ritual in much the same way your 'Modern' will use medicine to cling to life and change fates. Does that mean the 'Tradition' is at fault, or the follower? I'd make the claim it's the follower in both the Traditional and the Modern sense that creates this disconnect in most cases.

Agreed. And I would go further and say that good followers in either thought/belief system will be closer to each other, in terms of how they live, than self-serving/hypocritical followers of their own ilk.

Agreed.

The difference for me is breadth; what is allowed to be engaged with. The Modern decided (for good reasons, mostly to do with power) that the Traditional was flawed. However, casting the whole lot aside was a mistake, IMO.

u.

Here, we see how generalizations can leave part of the story out, much like if I were to associate Tradition with Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Evangelism only. As there are some Traditions more limiting then others (I see Evangelism as being a very limiting world view, for example... you can't believe in anything outside of the Bible, 'Sola Scirptura' as rus likes to say) there are some that are more open(i.e. Modern Catholicism allows one to study/follow science almost as much as they would wish to. That evolution is not in any church documents does not prevent them from allowing it to be accepted.).
It's the same with Moderns. Sure, there are people like Bill Mahr and Richard Dawkins who would absolutly reject religious traditions as harmful, but there are others that have more of a "do what thou wilt" attitude, so long as you are not forcing someone into your world view (this would be through political or tyrannical means. Being stubborn or immovable, as you prefer , is not forcing anyone into you world view and is acceptable by these types of Moderns as is disagreeing with that worldview, or the Modern itself).

[Vraith]

But that's not what it is [philosophically speaking...heh] for, at least not its entirety [some specializations are]...although that vision of it is why someone as smart as Hawking can say basically [paraphrasing] "philosophy is dead, and a good thing cuz it's stupid." It does, of course, have to deal with what reason is, how it works, etc...but only because it is looking to fill the territory between the factual [which makes no value claims] and the valuable in the human experience [which in its purest forms, though rarely discussed/isolated, makes no fact claims].

I understand that, however, the mode of Philosophy, by its very nature, is reason. It is the ground it stands on, the air it breathes and the laws it proceeds by. Anything that cannot be embraced by reason cannot be part of Philosophy. I admire the relentless pursuit of truth within reason that Philosophy engages in. Its rigour and consistency are why it is so valuable. And it's not enough. For me, other ways of knowing are necessary to begin to understand all of what it means to be human.

On another tack. After engaging with some of the Chesterton material a thought ocurred to me about another difference between Tradition and the Modern. In Tradition the great forces that shape our lives: birth, fertility and death are treated with as vital and so hedged around with laws and ritual. Tradition recognises that in the face of these forces we are largely powerless. Strange as it might seem there is actually a humility about Tradition in relation to them.

The Modern, however, has a different attitude. Through science, technology and reason there is a constant attempt to manage and control these forces. Regardless of how much more we know of them, how much more we attempt to manage and control them the power of birth, fertility and death inexorably shape the lives we lead. In the face of life, the Modern refuses to bow down and much angst ensues.

IMO, in this case the humility of Tradition is actually a more accurate assessment and response to the facts of our existence than the Modern.

u.

Other ways of knowing matter for our non-rational side. We are not entirely rational in nature, anyone who is is a monster in one way or another. HOWEVER: it makes no sense, in fact is dangerous in the extreme, to pretend that things that ARE known rationally are "lies," or "Evil"" because they conflict with some non-rational belief. Evolution is real, the world is far older than 6000 years, "Creation Science" is a tool of people who are tools. There is not secret damn conspiracy to wipe out "Truth."

And I don't think the "humility of tradition" is more accurate to the facts of existence. The humility of tradition is to humiliate anyone who dares deny "Tradition" in and of itself, it true and meaningful. Standing in awe of what you don't understand is worthless if it stays as awe, and you don't attempt to understand it.

[Fist and Faith]

Testing this atomic browser...

What do you have? I'm looking for a tablet of some sort. I thought you had iPad?

1) your world view allows for mine as something not true for you, which is what mine insists that it is. It is true for everyone, regardless of what "pleases" or "works for" them. So no, your world view cannot accept mine, for if it does, it must automatically reject wha.t you have heretofore been fighting for. The Orthodox worldview is incompatible with the ideas in "Conversations With God".
I tell you what is true. You can obsess over it making you wrong, but that is the flip side of any claim of truth. Your world view DOES declare mine to be wrong, for mine does say that there is only one way to the Father, that there are not many ways. I'd have to footnote this with observations clarifying that we do not limit God's grace, but that we do have to go with what He told us, and are responsible for what we know, just so you don't think I'm saying that a person must "join my religion" to be saved.

You seem to be in a constant state of shock over the idea of being wrong. - over an implication that your ideas must be wrong. Me, I take it completely in stride and it troubles me not a whit. I EXPECT you to say I'm wrong. That's what disagreement and debate are made of. This isn't "Kumbaya" around a campfire. It's life and death, and there are stakes both in this world and in our eternal
souls. So somebody MUST be wrong. Why does that bother you so much?

I think there's a couple of things being mixed together. First, my worldview is not wrong. It is accurate and true. It reflects the world and humanity as they are, and as they always have been. It is entirely expected that your worldview exists. There is every reason to assume worldviews that insist on absolutes will exist. Many people insist on absolutes in many ways, so it makes perfect sense to find that attitude in worldviews.

Your worldview is also accepted. It does not threaten or diminish mine. It is simply a natural part of mine. The fact that it does not agree is not at all relevant. Again, it is expected.

So it is not a matter of my worldview having a problem with yours. It is a matter of me having a problem with you. Not in the personal sense. (Although I could write a book... heh) I mean in the sense of your goals here. You want to convince all of us that your worldview is the one and only one; and that Chesterton is the greatest of English writers, and that he had the most clear understanding of all truths.

Well, it's not gonna happen. Neither. In almost five years, you've accomplished neither with anybody here. You can go two ways from here:
1) Continue to tell us all we're wrong (to the specific degrees that each of us is wrong) about our worldviews, and about Chesterton. In light of the last five years, how do you expect the future to go?

2) You can join us in sharing how your worldview views whatever given topic is being discussed. For example, telling us how your worldview views depression (as opposed to telling us that we are viewing depression incorrectly). If you say, "Here's how I see it...", people might see if that attitude benefits them. If it does, it might make them give greater consideration to your worldview as a whole. Saying, "You're wrong about how you view depression" will turn people away from you. And if you are what people know about your worldview, it will very possibly keep them away from it. "If Orthodoxy leads to that kind of interaction, I'm not interested." is more reasonable than "This guy is always telling me I'm wrong. I guess I'll assume he's correct."

Lastly, I've been trying to say that these two separate issues are not one and the same issue, as you treat them.
Thesis one: Chesterton spoke many great and true things. He was not the first or the last, but said them rather better than most. I say those things now. When I say them now, you try to treat them as merely statements of a dead author, as if I am not saying those things myself and therefore as if you have no need to respond to them.

Thesis two: Chesterton was a truly great man in many respects. This is a matter that requires personal learning and knowledge to be able to dispute. Yet you dispute those respects on almost no basis whatsoever. Don't read him. Fine. Cut off your nose to spite your face. But if I say something good about him, don't come flying
in to shoot it down until you've read his bio and acquired a broader familiarity with his works.

YOU are seeing it wrong. You insist that we read all of Chesterton's works, and tell you anything we think is wrong with his thinking, so that you may correct us. We are not interested in this. We do not come here to discuss and debate Chesterton. We are here to discuss ideas. You just quoted Chesterton, adding your own words, and I responded. Is that a problem? Does that require a dissection of TEM?

But since you want to hear, I'll tell you something about the video of your first post of this thread. Chesterton is speaking nonsense. He's manipulating emotions with ideas that are, to give him the benefit of the doubt, misunderstandings. I just posted several posts with Holsety about science:
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=841583#841583
If you want to copy and paste any of that to here and argue about it, that's fine. Saying "the scientific intellect" is the problem is just plain stupid. (Again, that's giving him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, he's intentionally lying about it.) Francis Collins is a wonderful example of the "scientific intellect." He wanted to learn what he could about this fascinating thing - the human genome. He wanted to learn it well, accurately, in ways that are verifiable. And he did a great service to humanity. The fact that he believes this is the Language of God is fine. No more a problem for learning what he learned than if he had been an atheist. Either way, this certain thing can be learned in certain ways. THAT'S "the scientific intellect." It has nothing to do with how that knowledge is used. The scientific intellect does not insist that X or Y is the proper use of that knowledge. It does not claim that A is morally superior to B, or vice versa.

But Chesterton wants scare tactics.
"Society is being destroyed."
"It is?!? By who??"
"By scientists."
"Scientists?!? Well, we gotta stop that!"
He's exactly as bad as, as Holsety says, Dawkins and Hawking claiming to have proven that God does not exist. (I haven't read Dawkins, because I don't need to hear why he doesn't believe God exists. I've never heard that about Hawking before.) Science can't prove God doesn't exist, and science cannot tell anyone to use the fruits of science for bad purposes.

[rusmeister]

And for those who haven't been following, I'll iterate that Neopagan defenses are quite modern; most cooked up within the last 40 years, with little to nothing of any sort before that. Lacking primary sources, those defenses must necessarily be the inventions of the modern professors without historical backing.

And I will observe once more, for the newbies, that Christianity was once a new religion as well -- and just like Neopaganism today, Christianity synthesized parts of religions that came before into a new one. And by the year 40 A.D., the New Testament hadn't even been written yet, let alone codified and commented on. To reject a new religion *because* it's new is really kind of ridiculous.

Let's chat again in a couple of centuries and see which of our religions has stood the test of time.

I do not question neo-paganism merely because it is new, but because it claims to be quite old, and yet is merely a reinvention, not a continuation, development or expansion at all. My previous comments were about scholarship that claims to be historical while in fact lacking the most essential part of historical record - primary sources. The history, therefore, is entirely non-continuous and is essentially invented. The neopagans are NOT a direct continuation of the ancient pagans, but a thing born in quite different circumstances.

The Christian Church, on the other hand, was a direct development of Judaism, and was initially propagated in Jewish temples and synagogues as a fulfillment of Judaism. The historical record on which the Church itself relied was therefore already considerable. Whether one accepted it or not depended on whether one saw the fulfillment of the prophecies in Christ or not. But the religion itself was indeed a development; an advancement.

So the one religion is deeply historical, the other is quite ahistorical. One has already stood the test of time, the other is very unlikely to, being a fashion with noble aims, benevolent desires and responding to the authentic human desire to worship, but nevertheless a fashion. Therefore I have no doubt which of the two will be left in x number of centuries.

But I do agree that these things need to be measured in centuries. I think I can say that most of the western Christian world has become old in direct proportion to the extent with which it has removed itself from the paradosis of Tradition, and doubt that most of those forms will still exist as such (ie, televangelists and so on of the sort we rightly despise today will be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the laws of the Burgermeister meisterburger ). But the ones that do cling to the paradosis of tradition most firmly are the most likely to still be there, for they do not seek to make themselves relevant to, and therefore prisoners of, their own time. I'm granting, of course, that we do not have an end-of-the-world scenario in the meantime, although that would resolve things much more quickly.

[rusmeister]

2 Fist:
Yeah, I have a 1st-gen iPad. I'd say you have to jailbreak it, though, unless you are ready to pay out the nose later for content controlled by Apple.

My biggest feeling about your last post is how it does not respond to my own words.
I should probably say that I got some time ago that you can entertain any sort of belief in your system. The thing I have said is that the condition of your philosophy is that that variety of beliefs is not true for you, but only for those who hold them. If I have misunderstood that, feel free to correct me, but after thousands of words, it seems pretty clear to me now. I expressed it in its simplest form, which I think not unjust - "Whatever floats your boat" - for it really doesn't matter what they believe - as long as their beliefs don't harm you (insofar as you can perceive harm) and above all, that what they believe is NOT true for YOU. It is precisely this that I am saying is incompatible with my faith. For what I believe DOES say Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Lord of Fist, and Fist WILL bow his knee, if not in this life, then in the hereafter, along with the rest of us. You can accept my having such a belief. You cannot accept it as being true for you. And that is where the incompatibility lies. It is NOT personal. This teaching existed long before I was born and will be around long after the both of us are gone, and it is clear to me that you DO have a problem with that teaching.

And again, I DO expect you to insist that your worldview is true and mine is not (particularly the part about Christ being YOUR Lord as well as mine), and am not in the least shocked or surprised that you think me wrong.

You keep telling me that I ought to change my approach. Yet no matter what my 'approach', it is not going to lead you to say "You're right. Jesus Christ IS my Lord and my God!". I don't know what will. I believe that to be up to the Holy Spirit of God. I do what I do, say what I say of what I know, and try to do it in as charitable a manner as possible. I do not expect my approach to "work" in the sense you speak of. I do not expect everyone on the Watch to lay down their arms and surrender to that Truth. I express it, and the things that support it as best I can. From my standpoint, it could be that my entire purpose in all these years was to plant one seed in one soul that could mature thirty years from now and lead to the salvation of a single soul. That could be the entire purpose of my life, for a single soul is more important than my life, and could be my salvation as well as theirs. I'm not trying to "collect scalps" or put "notches" on my gun.

On Chesterton, I have already said that you have my blessing to cut off your nose to spite your face. I have already said "Fine. Don't read him if you don't want to." But if you don't, neither can you intelligently say much about him. Behold! Here I am on the very last thread, one of my own making, starting no new ones, leaping into no others, and still you track me down to bash Chesterton.

And on that, let me show you (or others if you don't want to hear it) how you have already misunderstood him:

Saying "the scientific intellect" is the problem is just plain stupid.

Only no one said that. You have evidently made it impossible for yourself to hear what is actually being said, which is this:

"I found that there was a special opening in the service for those whose fears for humanity were concerned rather with the aberrations of the scientific intellect than with the normal and excusable, though excessive, outbreaks of the human will.

How you missed that key word, which makes it clear that it is not a broad-brush attack against all scientific intellect, but only against its aberrations, is a mystery, unless it is because you listened with only half an ear and didn't try to understand. If that is representative sampling of your reading of Chesterton no wonder you dislike him. If I left out every third or fourth word in his texts they would become nonsense much like what you describe. I find it necessary to read him slowly and carefully. So there is no attack on Francis Collins or all the good in scientific intellect at all. You have entirely misheard the text.

I believe that you are a fair-minded man, who might give a retrial if you learned that the first verdict was wrong.

Thesis one paraphrase: If I say things that someone else once said, and I say them, not as artistic expression, but as truth, then it is I who say them and me to whom you should respond, and if you do not then it is me that you are ignoring. I now say these things and it is evasion of argument to refuse to engage with them. It IS ignoring what I say in my posts when I say or quote anyone in an argument of truth.

Thesis two paraphrase: If I post on Chesterton, I ask you to try to learn something about him before commenting - the more the better. If you want to dispute my statements about him, you need to know a lot, because I have made him and his works a long-term object of study, so you need to be able to speak from knowledge.

So here I am in one little thread, of which I am the OP. If you're interested, read and listen! If not, there are hundreds of other threads here on the Watch that could better occupy your time.

But I hope that you'll reconsider your verdict and discover an amazing writer that you've been missing, and I'd still recommend you give the Ballad of the White Horse a whirl. How often do we find even halfway decent epic poetry in English, especially in our time, when poetry is nearly a dead art form? I think you could even accept Christian expressions in literature - whether it's Chaucer or whoever - without getting bent out of shape. If you don't reconsider, oh well. I'll speak to others, then.

[aliantha]

And for those who haven't been following, I'll iterate that Neopagan defenses are quite modern; most cooked up within the last 40 years, with little to nothing of any sort before that. Lacking primary sources, those defenses must necessarily be the inventions of the modern professors without historical backing.

And I will observe once more, for the newbies, that Christianity was once a new religion as well -- and just like Neopaganism today, Christianity synthesized parts of religions that came before into a new one. And by the year 40 A.D., the New Testament hadn't even been written yet, let alone codified and commented on. To reject a new religion *because* it's new is really kind of ridiculous.

Let's chat again in a couple of centuries and see which of our religions has stood the test of time.

I do not question neo-paganism merely because it is new, but because it claims to be quite old, and yet is merely a reinvention, not a continuation, development or expansion at all. My previous comments were about scholarship that claims to be historical while in fact lacking the most essential part of historical record - primary sources. The history, therefore, is entirely non-continuous and is essentially invented. The neopagans are NOT a direct continuation of the ancient pagans, but a thing born in quite different circumstances.

As most Neopagans abandoned the claim of direct succession from ancient times, oh, a couple of decades ago, the rest of your argument falls apart.

Ceremonial magick (which is what was nascent when GKC wrote all the pagans were dead) and its successors recognize the Feminine Godhead which is largely missing from Christianity. On that basis alone, one could almost say that Neopaganism perfects Christianity.

So the one religion ... has already stood the test of time, the other is very unlikely to, being a fashion with noble aims, benevolent desires and responding to the authentic human desire to worship, but nevertheless a fashion. Therefore I have no doubt which of the two will be left in x number of centuries.

That's funny. I too have no doubt which will survive. But I think my answer differs from yours....

the Burgermeister meisterburger

[rusmeister]

Well, I have kids, and we watch that stuff on video (which I hauled over) every year.
OT:
My wife's family teaches them about Grandfather Frost (Dyed Moroz /dyehd muh-ROSE/ but I read the Night Before Christmas and don't go beyond reading the stories as stories. At least I don't tell them that Santa Claus is real. (That could go into the goodness of the pagan ideas and even the modern neopaganization of Santa Claus - even in what I see to be decay, there is good in those things, and Lewis expresses this in Narnia, MacDonald and Chesterton in Fairyland and so on.)

If it were ever possible to discuss on more neutral ground, the idea of the role of sex - what is the significance of the division, and deeper discussions of our understandings of our ontological equality - would make for an interesting discussion. I think for people who have the idea of patriarchy firmly ensconced, it can be eye-opening just how completely equal women feel in the Orthodox (and undoubtedly Catholic) tradition(s) - that the paradigm widely accepted today (thanks to public ed and the media) is inapplicable to those people and traditions. (I think my wife feels definite superiority as a matter of fact... )

But you can bet we sing the Rankin-Bass songs!

[aliantha]

But you can bet we sing the Rankin-Bass songs!

Whoo hoo! The original Rankin-Bass Rudolph is still my favorite holiday show.

Re the iPad: I replaced my moribund phone with an iPhone a couple of weeks ago. The user interface is head-and-shoulders above the old dead phone, but the virtual keyboard sure takes some getting used to -- and my fingers are not particularly large.... I'm thinking about getting an iPad for traveling when my netbook dies, but we'll see. I'm a little leery about any one corporation owning that big a chunk of my online experience (which is the main reason why I'm still hanging onto Earthlink for e-mail instead of switching everything over to Gmail).

[rusmeister]

But you can bet we sing the Rankin-Bass songs!

Whoo hoo! The original Rankin-Bass Rudolph is still my favorite holiday show.

Re the iPad: I replaced my moribund phone with an iPhone a couple of weeks ago. The user interface is head-and-shoulders above the old dead phone, but the virtual keyboard sure takes some getting used to -- and my fingers are not particularly large.... I'm thinking about getting an iPad for traveling when my netbook dies, but we'll see. I'm a little leery about any one corporation owning that big a chunk of my online experience (which is the main reason why I'm still hanging onto Earthlink for e-mail instead of switching everything over to Gmail).

Amen, amen, amen!
(Whoops! Sorry for the Christian reference! )

I'm home sick today with my older college-age son after a brief vacation at a last-chance resort in Turkey. Everyone else is gone to the dacha. Waiting for a pizza delivery and a movie...

[aliantha]

You're excused.

Hope y'all feel better soon, rus.

[Avatar]

From Another Thread:

I'm not an expert, but I believe it's evolved since near the beginning. Taking the most obvious one, Christians don't have to follow Moses' dietary laws as laid out in Leviticus because in Matthew Jesus said, "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth".

But up until as late as the 1800's, they still relied on Exodus 22:18 despite Jesus saying "Let him who is without sin..."

I just wondered if it's an official teaching that the NT overrules the OT, and when it was first instituted. Officially.

--A

Taking a risk to answer a question that has a definite answer...

...I can say that that authority determined at the very beginning that the old covenant was finished and completed, and a new covenant was established.

Except you didn't really answer my question, did you?

Who determined it? (Who? What person or what council?) And when did they determine it? (What year?) And does it officially form a part of any doctrine? (Is it taught as revealed truth?)

--A