There is no need to address the main topic of thispost, because I did so here with my last post. However, when I came across this I had to pause:
“…or that god forms us in “His” image, (take note, females!), but we have to make do without such tales when we learn more about how things actually work.”
First of all, this statement alone as to the, “how things actually work” proves the very point that scientism is reductionist. The implication is that once we have reduced the physical down to “how it works” we can dismiss any other meaning or knowledge as to that same physical object whatever it might be, human or otherwise. It further misses the point that Christianity isn’t commenting on how things “actually” work but on what they “actually” mean. Scientism is simply a secular fundamentalist response to religous fundamentalism. It is two people with the same mind-set and sensibility talking pass each other and nothing more. It has nothing to say to orthodox Christianity.
And the comment about “His” and women. Anyone familiar with the Hebrew language and Christian theology would of course know how inaccurate the comment is (see here). But even that wasn’t what really struck me. It was the “noble” attempt to alert the women of what they “should” take note of here, you know, in case they missed it. As if these things haven’t been talked and written about for centuries.
And this blog post addresses, I think, the same undercurrent present in the “gallant” comment noted above.
Byzantine Dream 
Well, thanks for the link!
But getting away from the more obscure commentators and lines of religion, Catholics seem pretty stuck on the “him” thing. Indeed, “Few things in modern biblical scholarship are as certain”.
Which is not saying much, I will grant, but still. It is unfortunate that Atheists seem to have entered the competition of most sexist religion-and/or-non-religion. I hope I have been consistent in my own commentaries.
LikeLike
Since you bring up misogyny and feminism, I can draw a parallel with religion. Among claims for religion are that they accord with our deepest intuitions.. that there is a god-shaped hole, and so forth, which points to some form of possible truth. Well, Patriarchy is likewise based on instincts and intuitions.. and is likewise virtually universal among cultures. How does one say that one is wrong and the other right? This relates to Eric's recent post on disgust and morality as well.
The lesson is that intuition is not trustworthy, other than as an expression of how we feel about things. It is certainly not a realiable guide to the reality of X or Y. And even those intuitive feelings are often morally wrong and in our wisdom need to be repressed and rechannelled for our broader happiness.
LikeLike
Hi Burk,
“The lesson is that intuition is not trustworthy, other than as an expression of how we feel about things. It is certainly not a realiable guide to the reality of X or Y. And even those intuitive feelings are often morally wrong and in our wisdom need to be repressed and rechannelled for our broader happiness.”
How would you know, based upon the critique you just made, what is “morally wrong” or “wisdom” or “happiness” or that your understanding, your intuition, regarding those terms, is correct?
Are you saying that your understanding or those terms is based upon empirical science and not intuition, while everyone else’s is?
By the way, I've never made a case for “intuition.” I know Eric uses the term, but I think he means something more along the lines of what I call “faith” “narrative” or “world-view.”
And we all live by faith.
LikeLike
Darrell-
Whatever you call it, it includes appeals to non-existent beings, based on either personal intuition or tradition / authority each of which is counter to empirical reality. That is the rub here.
I have no bone to pick with “wisdom”, with our ability to judge among our various impulses and desires and aims to choose better behaviors. The problem is when your narrative, or faith, or world view is flatly wrong.. what is the result of such a world view when applied to moral questions? Sometimes the result can be good, but it can also be very bad. The spread of possibilities is rather wide.
And then to turn around and say that a morally good (if this happens) result validates the truth of the story being told and thus indicates that god did indeed make the earth in seven days, or meddles in evolution, or permeates existence, or whatever.. then you have completely left the realm of reason.
This is the reason why we fight against… prejudice. Judgements made in advance of reason, such as perhaps that someone who has blue eyes is nicer than someone else. That is the kind of thing where a person has a “narrative”, a “faith”, a “world-view”, which.. hey, it might be “deeply held”.. but a bit of empirical spade-work tells us that this faith is quite misplaced, not to mention pernicious, and we might better judge each case as it comes along, by less faith-y criteria.
LikeLike
You completely missed my point and didn't address my question. You've reduced all these areas to “intuition”, claimed they can be wrong, but then tell us that your's are the correct ones or that somehow you are immune.
The rest is question begging, ad-hominen, and directed to straw-men.
LikeLike
Darrell-
You will have to make your point more succinctly / clearly if you want it addressed. I do my best to dredge up something addressable.
Re-reading, I can see that you claim that.. ” It further misses the point that Christianity isn’t commenting on how things “actually” work but on what they “actually” mean.”
This is patently false. Christianity has a vast corpus of claims about how things work, and that impossible things of various sorts happened in the past. Like resurrections, prayer, life after death, the second coming.. the list goes on and on and on.
It is this ontology of how reality operates which underpins all the other claims of Christianity, for if Jesus was really a little bit of god, then his death had to be super-significant and somehow sacrificially atone for us, before we are individually judged before the heavenly bench.. and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
The ontology (and dynamics) that Christianity posits about reality is totally entwined with its moral and theological propositions. Hell is a good example. Is it or is it not real?
So geat.. you have a “narrative”, which is of ontological significance, as well as moral and personal and institutional and .. many other forms of significance as well. All I ask is that we check whether its basis is really true.
LikeLike
What are you talking about? Here it is again:
“The lesson is that intuition is not trustworthy, other than as an expression of how we feel about things. It is certainly not a realiable guide to the reality of X or Y. And even those intuitive feelings are often morally wrong and in our wisdom need to be repressed and rechannelled for our broader happiness.”
How would you know, based upon the critique you just made, what is “morally wrong” or “wisdom” or “happiness” or that your understanding, your intuition, regarding those terms, is correct?
LikeLike
Oh- is that what you were concerned about? That our intuitions can be morally wrong? This is not special to me or to others. We all have intuitions that are wrong, all the time. Intuition = prejudice. I do not make myself special here in any way.
The problem is when you enshrine the intutions of dead-and-gone white males, or those of primitive societies, or those of your “gut” as some infallible guide to behavior, thus stealing from the present moral actors (or ones not identical with yourself) their capacity to deal with the world by their own intuitions and more considered judgements. It is all to the good that deep thinkers of moralists of the past have given us advice and guidance. But to lash ourselves to some antiquited fantasy world with its florid ontological+moral elements, out of tradition or religious fervor, etc.. that is a problem.
LikeLike
“Oh- is that what you were concerned about? That our intuitions can be morally wrong? This is not special to me or to others. We all have intuitions that are wrong, all the time. Intuition = prejudice. I do not make myself special here in any way.”
But you just did. You noted that you know what is morally wrong, wise, and makes for “happiness.”
See here again: “The lesson is that intuition is not trustworthy, other than as an expression of how we feel about things. It is certainly not a realiable guide to the reality of X or Y. And even those intuitive feelings are often morally wrong (do you know what’s morally wrong intuitively?) and in our wisdom (do you know what’s wise intuitively?) need to be repressed and rechannelled for our broader happiness (do you know what makes for happiness intuitively?).”
If so, then take your own advice, that they are untrustworthy and prejudicial. You negated everything you just said—it is self-defeating.
LikeLike
Darrell-
You are totally beating around the wrong bush here. Making moral judgements is difficult enough (and error-prone enough) without tying ourselves to bad ontologies from which we fool ourselves we are prestidigitating our moral principles and judgements.
The issue is that a dead book of fantasies certainly knows no better than we do what is wise, even if it could speak without interpretation, which it can't. So we should just stop making such theater and consult with each other in the open, without the scrim of theology. Which is what democracy is all about.
LikeLike
I'm not sure how democracy got thrown into this, but noting the self-defeating nature of your assertions is not beating around the bush.
If intuitions are not trustworthy and prejudicial, why do you trust yours? How is it you can see this for others? Intuitively? You've caught yourself in a circle.
LikeLike