Fw: [Critical-Realism] repression of the religious

[gdeme...@msn.com]

The following is from a discussion on the Critical Realism list.  Critical realism is a school of contemporary philosophy that  very much stems from the work of Roy Bhaskar.  Here's a relatively short description for those who may have an interest:  http://f.students.umkc.edu/fkfc8/BhaskarCR.htm.

 

While the discussion arose in the very different context of the issues raised by that list, many of the points below resemble ones we have discussed.  I'm not overly convinced that anyone would be persuaded or even give second thought to what is read below who does not so similarly believe, but I think it's both important and legitimate in any case to publicly proclaim that to which we believe within the contexts and ways that are open to us, then to stay with the discussion or move on in no small measure in relation to the reception.

 

George Demetrion

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

There are tough issues here that may require closer parsing including perhaps a more subtle grappling with the relationship between what some interpret proseltyzing and others view as explanation.  This is particularly so on a philosophical list where religion within the contexts laid out by the parameters of the discourse community has a legitimate place to play as noted by Brian even as he is not particularly interested in the topic  Not that I'm an expert here, but on a list called critical realism ontological as well as epistemological issues are very much in play.  In this respect, whatever the specific topic under discussion the context in its relationship to critical realism would, in my view, need to be spelled out in its own terms that includes some substantive claims and rationales of the particular discipline or topic under focus, whether economics, political culture, sociology, and religion. On this Dave, and I would be personally interested in reading it, perhaps you can lay out some of the relationships you draw between Catholicism and critical realism.  As I'm reading the messages the gauntlet has been laid down to do something along those lines even as I am sensing there are more that a few here who would prefer to have the entire topic put to rest even if a strong CR linkage can be made.
 
Though this is not a new insight for anyone here, religion on its own epistemological and ontological terms has become especially problematic given the intellectual trends of the last 300 years or so in the increasing secularization of both academic discourse and large sectors of the popular culture in Europe and North America. That's the case even with various fundamentalist and more complex religious counter-discourse responses of varying levels of sophistication and cant. This secularist bias, an article of faith in its own right has a tendency to arbitrarily dismiss religious truth claims on their own terms and subsume them within other discourses, whether history, sociology, or literature.  Some of us who are holding discussion on a religious list refer to this as "radical historicism." Whether the term is being used exacting correct manner I'm not sure, but the upshot is the problem of defining history as the center of value through which human experience is interpreted. Such historicism has proven a healthy reaction in the course of western intellectual life in response to religious hegemony of the late Middle Ages, but becomes a problem in the contemporary period when historical consciousness becomes the universe through which human reality becomes processed. That in itself, I would argue is a religious impulse draped in secular clothes.  My own take is that while historical consciousness is inescapable that acknowledgment is not synonymous with making an absolute out of historicism.  That is, history, yes, historicism no.  This, write large goes for science, too.  Science yes, most emphatically yes, but scientism as a transcendent value no, or more to the point here, a deep appreciation of the natural world in as many ways as possible, but no nature religion in the sense of defining reality itself through naturalism or pantheism.  Such claims can be made, but they are an article of faith (a religion) in which naturalism is presupposed based both on and beyond the evidence.  
 
Thus, just like economic, political, or sociological theory, religion has its own discourse, its own epistemological and ontological claims that cannot even begin to be discussed with any intelligence and depth unless the topic, including its core truth claims are allowed to surface on their own terms. On this, a very accessible book by Huston Smith on World Religions serves a great purpose in describing the various religions pretty much on their own terms even though Smith is very much a religious insider and specifically a Christian.
 
With Dave, I am a Christian, though of the Protestant persuasion.  Notwithstanding the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, a discussion of which perhaps belongs on another list, there are core commonalities, what is sometimes referred to as basic or "mere" Christianity--common beliefs that have been more or less held since the written record of Christian testimony with Paul’s writings (starting around 55), who, I do not believe created a new religion.  Rather, using his conversion as a marking point, which occurred somewhere around 40 or even before, was responding to an early Christian movement that had enough impetus to stimulate persecution very shortly after Jesus' death.  That is, a decent case can be made that a more than incipient Christian movement was afoot by the early 30s, which, pace Paul, included a belief in the resurrection very early on.  Whether one agrees with him or not, NT Wright is the specialist par excellence here who, and I'm quite sure about this, draws on critical realist reasoning in his interpretation of the early Christian movement especially in The New Testament and the People of God where he lays out his methodology: http://www.amazon.com/Testament-People-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626818.

 
So what does Christianity claim about reality? To cut to the chase, that God exists and has been revealed to human beings, though imperfectly, through nature, Scripture, church traditions (which includes theology), history, and human experience. As a Protestant I believe the fullest revelation is in Scripture (though not only there) which nonetheless we only can read through a "mirror dimly"  Note that I am bringing in a citation from the Bible for the purpose of illustrating that Christianity as well as Judaism makes room for fallible human understanding even while standing firm on the core faith claim that in the beginning was the Word.  That is, I am using Scripture in context for the purpose of making a point on this list.  To move out of religious language the Christian claim is that there is a source beyond history and beyond nature, while also revealed (in part) within nature and history which gives shape to reality.  This reality has powerful resemblances to human personality even while beyond human comprehension which nonetheless reveals its presence most fully in and through the Judeo-Christian Scripture and becomes fully embodied in Jesus Christ (the canonical one) as manifested in his life teaching, death, resurrection, the formation of the movement that followed him which brought the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3) to fuller realization, and in the formation of the New Testament.  I realize this claim is a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Greeks (read both through ancient and modern prisms and metaphorically appropriated as relevant), but a claim Christianity needs to make on the most basic assumption of its creed that in Christ God is reconciling the world.  Making and publicizing this claim straight on opens the door for other religions to make their claims on their own operating premises as do atheists, materialists, critical realists, Freudians, and feminists.  
 
On the New Testament while one can always do a deconstructive reading, any balanced third person reading of that text cannot but conclude that there is a broad symmetry in the personhood and mission of Jesus Christ who, when taken in its textual totality is not only the proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment and fulfillment in human flesh.  On this reading, then, suffering love, in which God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (and there is some poetry here as well as more than poetry), is the very essence of human fulfillment, and that in Christ a pathway to a life so lived has been opened up.  The seeming irony is that in radically surrendering one’s life to Christ (to use the biblical terminology) it is given back to us ten fold, but only by way of the Cross.
 
These claims are not susceptible to direct proof and Protestants are more prone than Catholics to stress the gap between faith and reason even in the common quest of faith in search of reason.  Ultimately one can only live the life called in Christ, then tell about what one has experienced and understood.  On this there is abundant testimony extending back 2000 years, yet also very modern and quite up to date as reflected in various contemporary theological expositions.  Thus, there is testimony which itself in its cumulative density can only be reasonably viewed as evidence which, by the nature of what it is, and to which it points, can only be but incomplete, but evidence that to too easily dismiss is to reflect an un-scientific bias against transcendent religious claims on their face.  Given the nature of the subject matter there will always be a gap between proclamation (dogmatics in the broad sense) and apologetics (explanation) including the argument that there is a first hand experience that when accessed opens up certain pathways of understanding that otherwise can only but remained closed.  Perhaps here is where the critical realism comes in, that there are generative mechanisms (realized and unrealized potential) in the nature of reality itself which when activated through identification of Christ as God, incarnate in human flesh opens up certain pathways in existence that otherwise would not be tapped—pathways, arguably, that are very life-giving in what they open up.
 
Moving at least partially beyond polemics and taking a tack from William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience, some even handed, third person analysis of such cumulative testimony would, I imagine, open up some very interesting explanations and theories.  These would move, I would hope, well beyond the intellectual reductionism that governs a great deal of academic discourse, say in the sociology of religion, which refuses to take the reasoning of even highly seasoned theologians on their face as the basis in its own right for intellectual probing argumentation.  This lacuna can only be rectified if theology and religious studies in their own right (and I don’t mean just Christianity) were brought back into the university in which religious discourse in itself were taken as seriously as any other discipline or topic that needs to be grappled with in terms of its own operative discourse assumptions and truth claims.  On that, some would be interested, others wouldn’t.  So be it. That’s 180 degrees different than asserting that religious discourse on its own terms has no legitimate place in the modern university
 
Perhaps it is time to overcome the repression of religion in the modern university.
 
George Demetrion
 

 

 

[Gabriel Fackre]

George,

 

While it is correct that Bhaskar is associated with the theory of critical realism, the subject has been explored in detail by theologians, New Testament scholars, theologian-scientists, etc. in a manner more fruitful for theological inquiry.

 

See this from Wikipedia:

 

Theological critical realism

Critical realism is employed by a community of scientists turned theologians. They are influenced by the scientist turned philosopher Michael Polanyi. Polanyi's ideas were taken up enthusiastically by T. F. Torrance whose work in this area has influenced many theologians calling themselves critical realists. This community includes John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, and Arthur Peacocke. The aim of the group is to show that the language of science and Christian theology are similar, forming a starting point for a dialogue between the two. Alister McGrath and Wentzel van Huyssteen (the latter of Princeton Theological Seminary) are recent contributors to this strand. Tom Wright, New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop of Durham also writes on this topic:

...I propose a form of critical realism. This is a way of describing the process of "knowing" that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence "realism"), while fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence "critical"). (The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 35)

Tom Wright's fellow biblical scholar--James Dunn--encountered the thought of Bernard Lonergan as mediated through Ben Meyer. Much of North American critical realism--later used in the service of theology--has its source in the thought of Lonergan.

 

      --Gabe

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Thanks Gabe,

 

That is informative.  I'll pass this along to the critical realism list.

 

George

[Willis Elliott]

George:

 

"Critical realism" from Polanyi on attacks the provincial contentment of specialists within their own languages--science's &  theology's contentment.  It preaches the humility that seeks to hear & understand speech that is alien to one's own discipline, toward the goal of mutuality in conversation & in pursuit of truth.  And of course it's essential if the secular university is to overcome the provincialism of its ideological secularity (i.e., secularism)--as you say, "an un-scientific bias against transcendent religious claims."

 

You say "The [transcendent] reality has...resemblances to human personality....reveals its [sic] presence...."  I sympathize with your problem of pronominal choice in view of the neuter noun "reality"; but I myself would avoid the neuter pronoun "its."

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: gdeme...@msn.com

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:09 AM

Subject: Fw: [Critical-Realism] repression of the religious

The following is from a discussion on the Critical Realism list.  Critical realism is a school of contemporary philosophy that  very much stems from the work of Roy Bhaskar.  Here's a relatively short description for those who may have an interest:  http://f.students.umkc.edu/fkfc8/BhaskarCR.htm.

 

While the discussion arose in the very different context of the issues raised by that list, many of the points below resemble ones we have discussed.  I'm not overly convinced that anyone would be persuaded or even give second thought to what is read below who does not so similarly believe, but I think it's both important and legitimate in any case to publicly proclaim that to which we believe within the contexts and ways that are open to us, then to stay with the discussion or move on in no small measure in relation to the reception.

 

George Demetrion

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

There are tough issues here that may require closer parsing including perhaps a more subtle grappling with the relationship between what some interpret proseltyzing and others view as explanation.  This is particularly so on a philosophical list where religion within the contexts laid out by the parameters of the discourse community has a legitimate place to play as noted by Brian even as he is not particularly interested in the topic  Not that I'm an expert here, but on a list called critical realism ontological as well as epistemological issues are very much in play.  In this respect, whatever the specific topic under discussion the context in its relationship to critical realism would, in my view, need to be spelled out in its own terms that includes some substantive claims and rationales of the particular discipline or topic under focus, whether economics, political culture, sociology, and religion. On this Dave, and I would be personally interested in reading it, perhaps you can lay out some of the relationships you draw between Catholicism and critical realism.  As I'm reading the messages the gauntlet has been laid down to do something along those lines even as I am sensing there are more that a few here who would prefer to have the entire topic put to rest even if a strong CR linkage can be made.
 
Though this is not a new insight for anyone here, religion on its own epistemological and ontological terms has become especially problematic given the intellectual trends of the last 300 years or so in the increasing secularization of both academic discourse and large sectors of the popular culture in Europe and North America. That's the case even with various fundamentalist and more complex religious counter-discourse responses of varying levels of sophistication and cant. This secularist bias, an article of faith in its own right has a tendency to arbitrarily dismiss religious truth claims on their own terms and subsume them within other discourses, whether history, sociology, or literature.  Some of us who are holding discussion on a religious list refer to this as "radical historicism." Whether the term is being used exacting correct manner I'm not sure, but the upshot is the problem of defining history as the center of value through which human experience is interpreted. Such historicism has proven a healthy reaction in the course of western intellectual life in response to religious hegemony of the late Middle Ages, but becomes a problem in the contemporary period when historical consciousness becomes the universe through which human reality becomes processed. That in itself, I would argue is a religious impulse draped in secular clothes.  My own take is that while historical consciousness is inescapable that acknowledgment is not synonymous with making an absolute out of historicism.  That is, history, yes, historicism no.  This, write large goes for science, too.  Science yes, most emphatically yes, but scientism as a transcendent value no, or more to the point here, a deep appreciation of the natural world in as many ways as possible, but no nature religion in the sense of defining reality itself through naturalism or pantheism.  Such claims can be made, but they are an article of faith (a religion) in which naturalism is presupposed based both on and beyond the evidence.  
 
Thus, just like economic, political, or sociological theory, religion has its own discourse, its own epistemological and ontological claims that cannot even begin to be discussed with any intelligence and depth unless the topic, including its core truth claims are allowed to surface on their own terms. On this, a very accessible book by Huston Smith on World Religions serves a great purpose in describing the various religions pretty much on their own terms even though Smith is very much a religious insider and specifically a Christian.
 
With Dave, I am a Christian, though of the Protestant persuasion.  Notwithstanding the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, a discussion of which perhaps belongs on another list, there are core commonalities, what is sometimes referred to as basic or "mere" Christianity--common beliefs that have been more or less held since the written record of Christian testimony with Paul's writings (starting around 55), who, I do not believe created a new religion.  Rather, using his conversion as a marking point, which occurred somewhere around 40 or even before, was responding to an early Christian movement that had enough impetus to stimulate persecution very shortly after Jesus' death.  That is, a decent case can be made that a more than incipient Christian movement was afoot by the early 30s, which, pace Paul, included a belief in the resurrection very early on.  Whether one agrees with him or not, NT Wright is the specialist par excellence here who, and I'm quite sure about this, draws on critical realist reasoning in his interpretation of the early Christian movement especially in The New Testament and the People of God where he lays out his methodology: http://www.amazon.com/Testament-People-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626818.

So what does Christianity claim about reality? To cut to the chase, that God exists and has been revealed to human beings, though imperfectly, through nature, Scripture, church traditions (which includes theology), history, and human experience. As a Protestant I believe the fullest revelation is in Scripture (though not only there) which nonetheless we only can read through a "mirror dimly"  Note that I am bringing in a citation from the Bible for the purpose of illustrating that Christianity as well as Judaism makes room for fallible human understanding even while standing firm on the core faith claim that in the beginning was the Word.  That is, I am using Scripture in context for the purpose of making a point on this list.  To move out of religious language the Christian claim is that there is a source beyond history and beyond nature, while also revealed (in part) within nature and history which gives shape to reality.  This reality has powerful resemblances to human personality even while beyond human comprehension which nonetheless reveals its presence most fully in and through the Judeo-Christian Scripture and becomes fully embodied in Jesus Christ (the canonical one) as manifested in his life teaching, death, resurrection, the formation of the movement that followed him which brought the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3) to fuller realization, and in the formation of the New Testament.  I realize this claim is a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Greeks (read both through ancient and modern prisms and metaphorically appropriated as relevant), but a claim Christianity needs to make on the most basic assumption of its creed that in Christ God is reconciling the world.  Making and publicizing this claim straight on opens the door for other religions to make their claims on their own operating premises as do atheists, materialists, critical realists, Freudians, and feminists.  
 
On the New Testament while one can always do a deconstructive reading, any balanced third person reading of that text cannot but conclude that there is a broad symmetry in the personhood and mission of Jesus Christ who, when taken in its textual totality is not only the proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment and fulfillment in human flesh.  On this reading, then, suffering love, in which God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (and there is some poetry here as well as more than poetry), is the very essence of human fulfillment, and that in Christ a pathway to a life so lived has been opened up.  The seeming irony is that in radically surrendering one's life to Christ (to use the biblical terminology) it is given back to us ten fold, but only by way of the Cross.
 

These claims are not susceptible to direct proof and Protestants are more prone than Catholics to stress the gap between faith and reason even in the common quest of faith in search of reason.  Ultimately one can only live the life called in Christ, then tell about what one has experienced and understood.  On this there is abundant testimony extending back 2000 years, yet also very modern and quite up to date as reflected in various contemporary theological expositions.  Thus, there is testimony which itself in its cumulative density can only be reasonably viewed as evidence which, by the nature of what it is, and to which it points, can only be but incomplete, but evidence that to too easily dismiss is to reflect an un-scientific bias against transcendent religious claims on their face.  Given the nature of the subject matter there will always be a gap between proclamation (dogmatics in the broad sense) and apologetics (explanation) including the argument that there is a first hand experience that when accessed opens up certain pathways of understanding that otherwise can only but remained closed.  Perhaps here is where the critical realism comes in, that there are generative mechanisms (realized and unrealized potential) in the nature of reality itself which when activated through identification of Christ as God, incarnate in human flesh opens up certain pathways in existence that otherwise would not be tapped--pathways, arguably, that are very life-giving in what they open up.