4 thoughts on “ISIS and Postmodernity”

  1. Phil, I think you might enjoy considering the PDF at this link–

    https://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781433525711.pdf

    –in relation to your essay at that one–

    http://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/124/Cman_124_1_Almond.pdf

    The first PDF is the introduction and first chapter from the Crossway book Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? As you see from the introduction, the book is a conservative Reformed response to certain ‘critical biblical scholarship’ that recognizes little or no evidence for the OT history of Israel. But here in Fulcrum, our greatest interest would be in the chapter where Thomas McCall writes to acquaint Reformed readers with two distinctions current in religious epistemology.

    By the accepted definitions, ‘internalists’ believe that truth-claims can only be warranted by personal knowledge of the ground of belief; they seek to clarify what sort of knowledge that is, and what counts as a reasonable ground for it. Meanwhile, ‘externalists’ note that few of us are sure of much at all that is not dependent on trusting the knowledge of others; they explore the sureness that we have and the conditions of reasonable trust. Using these terms as McCall explains them, it seems that your essay’s ‘private judgment rules’ are an account of the internalist kind.

    McCall also distinguishes between two conceptions of truth with which you are familiar. On one hand (p 17), foundationalists regard thoughts as true when they are validly built up as a pyramid from a foundation of certain facts; they explain as best they can how we can be certain of facts and what building up of derived ideas is valid. On the other hand (p 18), coherentists regard thoughts as most true when they are best connected, as a node in a web, with the totality of what we reasonably presume that we know; they try to account for the credibility of knowledge without making a universal presupposition of any of it. McCall himself seems to favour ‘Reformed Epistemology’, a modified foundationalism that takes reliable testimony into the foundation on which knowledge is constructed (p 19). You would probably agree that your ‘private judgment rules’ are a foundationalist proceedure for truth-finding, although it is not clear– at least not to me– what sort of foundationalism you prefer. Of McCall’s fictional foundationalist exemplars, would Rick (p 23, internalist, strict foundationalist) or Bill (p 24, internalist, modified foundationalist) find your rules most useful?

    More or less in passing, McCall mentions two metalogical considerations that qualify all of these positions. Both balance accounts of the representation of truth (eg pyramid, web) with the reality that truthseeking is a human activity. One is that truth is not necessarily the same thing as ‘reasonably warranted belief.’ A formally faultless search is no guarantee that anything sound will be discovered. The other is that the moves that we make in seeking truth instantiate either virtue or vice in the mind. Intellectual and other virtue is as necessary to a good search as a good method, and we have a moral stake, not just in the finding, but in the searching itself. None of this is news to you, of course.

    But I wonder how you see your ‘private judgment rules’ in relation to these ideas. It also occurs to me that these epistemological may make it easier for you to describe the positions that you oppose than political ones (eg ‘liberal’) do. And finally, these distinctions make it easier for us to discuss how the gospel moves us to the sort of thinking that we do. For example, you seem to view sin’s mortal danger to the soul as metalogically demanding both internalism– why trust anyone else?– and some foundationalism– how else can you be sure? But if you only find McCall’s chapter to be interesting reading some summer evening, it will have been worthwhile to post the link to it here.

  2. Spiritual authority comes from the Holy Spirit, or not at all, and whilst it must use ideas, it never lacks both persons of true holiness and visible solidarity in the Body of Christ. So the proliferation of opinions that concerns the OP is only a practical problem for those who have a shallower heterodox religion of shared propositional opinion. To them, a dozen new opinions is a dozen new paths from which to choose. In practice, this philodoxy will lead them to take abstract opinions too seriously, fail to follow the holy exemplars given them, and confuse partisan likemindedness for unity in the mind of Christ. Their confusion is regrettable– maybe they can be enlightened?– but those who understand spiritual authority well enough to follow it can find it, even today. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit, given to all believers in Christ who ask for it.

  3. Phil sets out his rules of debate or method of truth here.

    http://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/124/Cman_124_1_Almond.pdf

    This is doubtless a profitable exercise for those involved. However it seems to have had little impact on the range of views in the Anglican Communion.Equally we have someone else involved in reaching a good disagreement. When the meetings are over and a new document is presented to synod will this bring unity or will the discussion continue in every PCC and home group?

    Dave

  4. “Let us say that a determined, passion-driven movement arises within Western Christianity, one that directly challenges long-settled interpretations of sacred scripture, and whose exponents don’t really care about tradition (or rather, decide that they can cherry-pick tradition to suit their purposes). Who could stop them, and with what, given the near-collapse in the plausibility of traditional modes of religious authority?”

    This is quite a good description of what is already happening by the ‘liberal’ (I don’t like using this precious adjective for an unwise trend, but you know what I mean) reconstruction of Christian truth which is increasingly dominant in the West, not least in the Church of England. The only thing that can ‘stop them’ is the God of the Bible acting in grace and mercy to fulfill his purposes in the hearts of his people and, we pray, in the hearts of those who are not yet his people – purposes which may involve being faithful unto death.

    As I see it our part includes obediently submitting in heart, mind, thought, will, word and work to the God and Christ who have graciously revealed themselves in the Bible, in terrible truths and wonderful truths. And where the truth and meaning of that revelation is a matter of controversy, to promulgate, and confront ourselves with, the ‘strongest views from all sides’.

    To seriously consider these strongest views is perilous. It forces us to understand views we disagree with at their best, and exposes our own convictions to the strongest possible challenges. Our convictions may survive those challenges, or we may, in self-critical honesty, be forced to change them. We all know how traumatic and humbling that is.

    For my full view see Churchman Vol 124 (2010) “The Search for the Truest Christian Doctrines and the True Knowledge of God”.

    Phil Almond

Leave a comment