‘Why and How?’. the sound track to my life?

I was sat in a world famous cafe yesterday drinking a coffee, trying to take my mind off my cold and sorting out my plan to deliver a course on J. S. Mill's 'On Liberty'. I was reading through Mill applications when I started to overhear a pair discussing 'the divine' and "how some people believe that Jesus is only half divine (and not at all divine)" this statement was followed up by a comment suggesting that these people who may have this belief "are not Christian". Now I can see why this may be claimed, and by many it is, usually by people who haven't studied theology, but I remember being a bit more open minded.

As I sat there awkwardly listing on the conversation then moved on to discuss the divine more generally. This is was great but then, after about 5 mins came that un-comprehendible statement – “It’s not important to try and define the divine?” – How can someone make this statement?

In my mind, like I hope in most people, the question of why? Trying to explain ‘how’ is an important one. It confuses me when I hear conversations or talk to people that don’t ask why or how. To me these are fundamental, especially when it comes to belief or faith.

When it comes to the questions about how we define the divine, it is answers to this that influence, or provides the parameters on how to interact with reality e.g. ‘Are my choice my own?’, ‘Does it make sense for me to potion this to God?’, ‘Do the words in this hymn make sense?’, ‘How does defining God as omnipotent affect us?’

These types of questions plague me and I hope I am not the only one. The whys and how’s are the sound track to my life.

Metaphysics and the temptation to comment.

My plan today was to sort out a new post, I have a few ideas that I have been jotting down. But last night I watched a video of a lecture about the relationship between the philosophy of nature and metaphysics. It is on a blog I have followed for years by  Arni Zachariassen (well worth a follow):

http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve/?p=3007

It is an interesting lecture and led me having to reply, therefore the new post will have to wait till Saturday or Sunday. Below the video you can see my comments delving into the beginning of my own metaphysics which I will expand on later.

However, what I will say is that my interest in Metaphysics is in the challenges of reducing (with the aim of eradicating) the logical inconsistencies that currently exist in Classical Theism. As these have often been labelled as paradoxes and then accepted. This I find unacceptable.

I urge you to follow the link, leave a comment if you wish and get involved. Also look at some of Arni's previous posts, they are interesting and entertaining.

Sunday politics and the lack of logical argument - Give reason a chance.

On a Sunday, it has become a custom here in the UK for TV stations to show 2 or 3 hours of news and political ‘debate’. What I have become aware of his the sheer lack of reasoned logical arguments that exist in the political media today. Now I am going to make the assumption that these reasoned arguments do exist and that politicians are able to use logic to sustain an argument (one hopes anyway).

So the lack of reasoned arguments present in the media covering politics must lie in lay in the editing and the types of questions that are being elected to ask; usually with the purpose of trying to instigate an emotional response, or to catch out the interviewee. This means however, that politicians aren’t able to express their reasoning behind the ideas/arguments they are making.

This then leads to sound bites of half established ideas, which is then quoted and responded to, with rash half baked response that are reacting to the initial idea rather than the full established argument.

My grievance with this is that when teaching philosophy, I am always stressing that arguments need to be based in logic, mush follow step by step, and that the reasons behind the conclusion are as important as the conclusions themselves.

This is a hard line to tow at times when one of the arenas of topical debate that effect all those I teach and myself, is not demonstrating (or being allowed to demonstrate) the ability to use these skills – and yes using logic and making reasoned arguments are a skill, and a useful one at that if given a chance. 

philosophy and theology

I read this recently from one the theology blogs that I read. Link below:

http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/further-thoughts-on-separating-theology-and-belief/

In this post Adam Kotsko makes a interesting argument that the usual resolution between what constitutes the difference between philosophy and theology. Although he describes the usual resolution as boring, and this is a crude way of putting, he is right. For example, the first suggestion Kotsko states "One potential starting point is the very formalistic definition of theology familiar from Tillich: theology is discourse about the “ultimate concern.” However, this potential solution is discounted by Kotsko as there are both Theological and Philosophical examples which have discourses which are about 'ultimate concern'.

The second, slightly more interesting (yet still boring?) solution is one brought about by Kierkegaard and his argument that with in Theology there is the importance of historical events; and it is this at separates the two disciplines. Yet again Kotsko points out that there can be argued that there are historical events of importance in the Philosophy as well e.g. The French Revolution. 

However, this is where it gets intriguing. Kotsko argues that "a truly interesting investigation will see the relationship between the two as one of continual struggle". When reading this I found Kotsko to be articulating a view which I have been mulling over for a year now. Only I would describe the relationship not as a struggle but as conflict. From what I have experienced so far, as a person who jumps from one side of the academic fence to the other, is that I rarely find it just a struggle and more a conflict. As though Philosophy and Theology were disgruntled neighbours either side of my mind separated by a fence and trying to take swings at each other. Only on occasion I manage to get them to work together for the day, e.g when discussing the arguments for the existence of God or debates about free will.

On those occasions, however, it seems that Philosophy always comes out on top, not because there is a final conclusion that is confirmed, but because the steps in the argument have more foundation, more reason to agree, less assumption. Now, this may seem obvious as Philosophy relys on reason, and at some point Theology will rely on belief or faith. I will suppose now that it is here where the conflict lies. Your mind tells you to follow reason and logic, yet something else within you (or at least this is my experience) asks you to reconsider the possibilities that faith/belief can lead you to. 

It is my feeling that this conflict or in Kotsko's words "struggle" that Philosophy and Theology find themselves in will only be resolved on a subjective level. One needs to find their own balance of the two, but please let me if you find the scales that work.

Frustration

The title of this post expresses the reasons behind me starting this blog. As a Theology graduate and Philosophy teacher, most of my discussions inside and outside of work are filled with challenge and debate. Now don't get me wrong, this is why I joy my job and and the area I studied in. However, many of these discussions can quite offen ever end with a reserved opinion from myself or a simple nod.

Moreover, these dissuasions always end without an answer. This obviously instigates my love for the area, but it also instigates my frustration. I have to believe that an answers is possible, and I strive to find it, or to help in the process of humanities discovery of them (or at least this is to what a aim), but along with this belief, comes the frustration of not quite ever getting there.

I suppose this is what keeps me in a Job, of which I am grateful, but piece of mind is something I would like to some day experience.

Please feel free to comment and engage in discussion, as to get it off the chest is to get it out of the mind, well, for at least a time anyway.