Comments for Just Wondering

Comment on The Story of Secularism (I) by kns

kns — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:43:23 +0000

It’s a tough work to parse and yet appreciating the breadth of its analysis can be equally challenging. It’s this attempt, this kind of philosophical history that I find so enticing because historians themselves can often be so reluctant to go for the grand analysis. Even if it doesn’t get everything right, it suggestive richness is well worth the effort.

You might also be interested in “The Immanent Frame” blog on the SSRC website, to which Taylor contributes, if you haven’t found it already.

Comment on A New Opportunity by The Story of Secularism « Just Wondering

The Story of Secularism « Just Wondering — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:44:11 +0000

[...] 8 May 2008 by Gil Well I’m back from a week of work-related travel (thank you Bethany Players) and in the process of planning out my summer. As always there will be a fair bit of time spent on trying to catch up on some of my teaching areas but I’m also starting to think about August 25 and my initial trip to Prague to begin PhD studies. [...]

Comment on The Incompetent Keenan by Gil

Gil — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:42:40 +0000

Brendan, what soccer team do you cheer for? Do the names Souness and Allardyce mean anything to you? Enough said. The Flames need a Keegan revolution.

Comment on The Incompetent Keenan by brendan

brendan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:29:52 +0000

no keenan, no playoffs. he is the only reason this beer league team made the playoffs anyways.

Comment on The Incompetent Keenan by Paul Morgun

Paul Morgun — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:09:05 +0000

At least Tanguay’s Gretzky like skill was still available to Flames in this Keenan era…you got to look at the positives.

Comment on Apologetics 10 - The Challenge of Pluralism by Gil

Gil — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:37:23 +0000

Jerry,
I agree. There are many benefits to a ‘pluralist state,’ not least of which is the basic protection of of the individual’s ‘right to choose’ (interesting in light of Jessica’s observation). I don’t see a better alternative and certainly would not want to go back to the idea of ‘national religion’.

The only danger I would see would be that an organizational decision (how can we all get along and protect each other?) could lead to an ideological decision (therefore none of these can possibly be true). I don’t think the second follows from the first.

Comment on Apologetics 10 - The Challenge of Pluralism by Gil

Gil — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:34:21 +0000

Jessica,
I think both pluralism and consumerism would have deep roots in the Enlightenment and the emerging idea of the rationally sovereign individual. This relatively recent ‘fact’ has changed nearly everything about the way we live - from politics to economics to religion.

The individual is autonomous and this has led to what one author has called the ‘therapeutic orientation’. What he means by this is that we tend to evaluate and choose nearly everything in our lives according to one criterion: the subjective experience of well-being. This applies to consumer choices, career choices, family choices (why have kids?) and even religious choices.

So I would definitely see a link between consumerism and pluralism but I see a common source in the Enlightenment notion of the sovereign individual.

Comment on Apologetics 10 - The Challenge of Pluralism by Gil

Gil — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:22:31 +0000

Dale,
All I meant to point out was that pluralism as an idea (or an ideology) faces an internal contradiction that is often unacknowledged. It is an effort to deal with the problem of many competing ‘particular views’ that is itself a particular view that attempts to make sense of everything.

This obviously does not make everyone who holds such a view hostile to Christianity or any other particular faith. I don’t think I implied that in the post above. I think that exclusivist faiths (not just Christianity) generally come in for rough treatment in the academic world but how much that trickles down to actual interactions between the people you’re rubbing shoulders with is obviously a different story.

I would expect that at the level of personal interactions there would continue to be a level of openness and tolerance expressed toward all views while that the level of ‘academic’ discourse there would be increasing distaste for exclusive views.

Comment on Apologetics 10 - The Challenge of Pluralism by Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:42:47 +0000

The two current uses of the word pluralism - “preference” and “evaluation” seem practical to me.

When a person decides on a preference for the most likely worldview to be considered as the only true worldview, they have choices - something I think anyone who advocates for “freewill” would appreciate.

For Christians who genuinely believe their worldview is the only true one (particularism), I’m sure they would appreciate that their worldview is known of and well represented in a culture that is steeped in another religion. That way, natives of that culture have comparisons to recognize for themselves what the truth is.

And to protect the rights of those natives who want the opportunity to explore other religions, such as Christianity, the political make-up in their society requires, as you phrased, an “evaluation” of religion.

To me, pluralism is an effort to protect a person’s right to practice the religion of their choosing. I think any nation that practices particularism (including those that exclude Christianity) should take the rights of their citizens in consideration.

Comment on Apologetics 10 - The Challenge of Pluralism by mdaele

mdaele — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:10:18 +0000

Just wondering if accepting the partial nature of knowledge precludes the neglect of the pursuit of truth. Are you noticing specific writers and thinkers that are making that connection in their thinking? Is this a notion that is arising out of a trend you are seeing generally?
Part of the tone of your piece here sounded almost threatened which frankly surprizes me a little (but then I might be misreading the tone).
I’m not sure that I have seen Pluralism in quite the same way. I just don’t see pluralistic people as eager to discount anyone’s point of view - even that of Christianity. Like I said before, I think I was expecting alot more hositility at university toward the Christian perspective. But i simply have not found it as strongly as i anticipated. Certainly the young people are very open and accepting and even the professors are for the main largely accomodating. The response is even more open if I am able to verbalize some of my own questions and doubts.
It’s not that I don’t see pluralism - I do!
I am just not sure that i would characterize it in the same way you have. I see significant concerns similar to ones you raised. But I am more concerned with people just not paying attention to the ideas they are entertaining.
Maybe I am missing something important - a trend or school of thought or political agenda that is more conniving than I have previously considered.