Comments on: A Philosophy (Theology) of Dialogue

By: Incoming...

Incoming... — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:53:19 +0000

but let’s be clear:
finding wisdom is the result of an ardent search - it is folly to accept as ‘wisdom’ any fanciful product of thought.
That we should decontruct the cluttered blathering that goes on around us, must be must be held as a virtue.
I’m surprised to see you questioning the place of doubt, skepticism, and cynicism as a vital function of the faithful follower of Christ.
I hope that what you are poking at is an exhortation to not allow our skepticism to turn into arrogance (which happens to be another reason arguements often fail in church settings). I doubt we need to worry about truth in the face of even extreme scrutiny. I think that the person who needs to remain forever postured in militant skepticism will be tortured and bitter and lonely, because even as a primary tool in the pursuit of wisdom it clearly is not an end in itself.
We need to remember that the discovery of truth is far more illusive than to be only discovered at the end of intellectual reasoning/debating/arguing/dialogue. We need to use the function of community to illuminate the way to truth. We also could benefit from a far healthier perspective on how our own personal expereince informs us of the path to wisdom.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:45:37 +0000

I really like your observation about post-modern dialogue. The post-modernist is primarily concerned about deconstruction - construction would be too paternalistic. Understanding assumptions is important, but it should not stall creative thought. Too often I find myself stuck in the mud and mire of “how can you really KNOW that?” or “that’s your perspective?”. It’s really quite frustrating.

By: Gil

Gil — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:29:33 +0000

I appreciate the emphasis on the person along with (over?) the idea. It’s a reminder that we (by ‘we’ I mean human beings) are terminally insecure and need to guard our security by fortifying our ideas against all threats. This is probably what lies behind Dale’s (correct) observation of the ‘immaturity’ and ‘emotional aggression’ that so often characterizes ‘dialogue’ within the church.

I still have a nagging question about what the future of ‘truth’ is in a climate of profound cynicism and skepticism. Do we need to approach the truth with something like love or commitment? It seems to me that we are too easily contented with ripping apart ideas that we don’t like and not as good at pursuing alternatives. My worry is that in the process we become bitter and cynical people who confuse ‘wisdom’ with precision regarding which ideas we think are stupid.

By: Paul Johnston

Paul Johnston — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:18:18 +0000

Should it include prayer?

By: dwark

dwark — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:23:23 +0000

Gil,
Sorry I haven’t responded with what I think a philosophy of dialogue would look like, because honestly, I don’t know… However, I don’t want to just critique the problem, and not aim for some sort of solution… So even if we don’t develop a sound system for what this means, its a discussion that needs to be had nonetheless.
Anyway, one aspect that I think relates to what Dale mentions, is an attitude of humility. Much of the theological/philosophical discussion seems to be motivated by some sort need to be right. And while correct understand is not the problem, it is too easy to forget the other people whom we are in dialogue with. What results is a sort of dialectical blindness, which ends up not being dialogue at all. So for now, my suggestion is an attitude of humility. Hopefully I can add more as I continue to reflect on this question…

By: Dale

Dale — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:01:46 +0000

i suppose that a dialogue that truly seeks to understand the other person is going to be much like you describe. however I don’t believe it is dialogue or innability to do that gets us into trouble. I think it is arguing that mounts a greater challenge to our well being as the body of Christ.
My contention is that there should be a way where competing ideas, positions, and perspectives can be aggressively defended and challenged without engaging in personal attack.
We must find a way to challenge each other without suggesting, implying or directly stating the other persons stupidity.
We have two problems in this:
1. our own immaturity in being able to divorce our strong convictions from emotional aggression which often leads to accusation and judgement. This is definately easier said than done. I easily need to mature in this
2. Our propensity to hinge all of our convictions on the one article of debnte that we are discussing. The modern foundationalistic system of thinking about faith and theology means that we have come to believe that if our “CASE for FAITH” isn’t air tight we may as well throw the whole thing out. So that is where I say we need to get far more comfortable with doubt and cyncism.
Lest our faith be considered so cursory as to actually dismiss it altogether…