tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post5602019750343205946..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: The Blessed NewmanD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-19809166329143611752010-09-22T10:09:58.327-04:002010-09-22T10:09:58.327-04:00What I mean is, why can't you carry on that th...What I mean is, why can't you carry on that theological debate on your blog?A. J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-51727875255571878512010-09-21T18:57:59.241-04:002010-09-21T18:57:59.241-04:00I was thinking about the utopian toleration in whi...I was thinking about the utopian toleration in which Jews are permitted, for example, openly and freely to dissent from Christian dogma while inviting counterarguments. <br /><br /><br />How would this work?A. J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-89928080421160536592010-09-21T18:56:13.927-04:002010-09-21T18:56:13.927-04:00But the only reason why you dismiss God is because...But the only reason why you dismiss God is because he is not a vending machine, Kevin. You want prayer X to obtain Y, always and without exception. But even science does not work that way. Medication X does not always and without exception treat successfully condition Y. Does this mean that medicine is a scam and science a fraud? Is a theory of disease a confabulation because it leads to a treatment that is not absolutely successful in all cases?A. J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-60159029759607064892010-09-21T18:23:46.133-04:002010-09-21T18:23:46.133-04:00Miriam,
I was thinking about the utopian tolerati...Miriam,<br /><br />I was thinking about the utopian toleration in which Jews are permitted, for example, openly and freely to dissent from Christian dogma while inviting counterarguments. A religious situation that has never existed. The first part of it exists in America today, but not the second.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-85547282554642231132010-09-21T18:06:11.324-04:002010-09-21T18:06:11.324-04:00There are different ways of being tolerant, Prof. ...There are different ways of being tolerant, Prof. Myers--which one do you mean here? Erik Sidenvall, for example, distinguishes between "positive" toleration (which we might describe as the happy variety, verging on multiculturalism) and "negative" toleration (the sort in which you just admit the other's right to exist, possibly while being rather antagonistic in the process). One might add the third version, in which everyone keeps their mouth shut while feeling rather grumpy. <br /><br />(I'm thinking about your challenge, but it will be a few days--a deadline looms.)Miriamhttp://littleprofessor.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-41799013552939103182010-09-21T12:40:50.778-04:002010-09-21T12:40:50.778-04:00“I too have been thinking about liberal education ...“I too have been thinking about liberal education in a secular setting (phrases I did use). Why is it that the words must be rearranged in the order you prefer, Kevin?”<br /><br />They don’t. I’m okay with your order: liberal education in a secular setting. I should have reproduced your expression, but under the spell of sloppiness (or exhaustion), an elision crept in. My bad. <br /><br />“Why could it not require toleration instead?”<br /><br />I’m pro-tolerance; I hope to never argue against it. By the by, I think your blog one of the finest out there.<br /><br />Second-generation New Criticism, and all! <br /><br />Cheers,<br />KevinKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-34113853082282245212010-09-21T05:38:06.363-04:002010-09-21T05:38:06.363-04:00Lastly, you ask, “If ‘secular liberal education’ h...<i>Lastly, you ask, “If ‘secular liberal education’ has to treat Revealed Religion as ‘confabulation,’ then in what sense can it rest upon foundations poured by Newman?” It cannot.</i><br /><br />But that was the question I asked—a question about Newman, not “secular liberal education,” a phrase I never used.<br /><br />I too have been thinking about liberal education in a secular setting (phrases I did use). Why is it that the words must be rearranged in the order you prefer, Kevin?<br /><br />That is, why must liberal education in a secular setting become “secular liberal education”?<br /><br />The political presumption in this country is that religious diversity requires secularism. But is that the case?<br /><br />Why could it not require toleration instead?D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-40832208151535593792010-09-20T23:36:39.332-04:002010-09-20T23:36:39.332-04:00[Original] “Secular liberal education has to treat...[Original] “Secular liberal education has to treat religious utterance . . as so much confabulation, exactly as it should.”<br /><br />[You] Defend this statement, especially the has to and the last four words.<br /><br />[Me]<br /><br />Okay. <br /><br />Secular liberal education is based on the thesis of naïve metaphysical realism, which goes something like this:<br /><br />1. There’s a way the world is.<br />2. Words, concepts, and propositions in language refer to states of affairs.<br />3. We can state objective truths about reality.<br />4. We can have knowledge of reality.<br />5. We can share knowledge of reality publicly.<br /><br />As Kant persuasively argues, theology / religion has no impartial (or public) method for solving disputes about purported claims of fact, such as:<br /><br />Does god exist?<br /><br />Is god part of the world or beyond it?<br /><br />Is he one or two or three, or more?<br /><br />Is she material or immaterial, moral or immoral, smart or dumb, etc.?<br /><br />Because theology / religion falters at (3), (4), and (5) above, secular liberal education has to regard it as a species of nonsense. That is, as a type of utterance that lacks truth conditions.<br /><br />So.<br /><br />When you say that all religious truth is by definition relative in comparative religion and humanities courses, I agree with you. Fully.<br /><br />It’s just that I go one step further and call it confabulation. <br /><br />Lastly, you ask, “If ‘secular liberal education’ has to treat Revealed Religion as ‘confabulation,’ then in what sense can it rest upon foundations poured by Newman?<br /><br />It cannot. <br /><br />But I defer to Burstein and eagerly await her response.<br /><br />Best,<br />KevinKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-7191893048770759222010-09-20T22:37:29.780-04:002010-09-20T22:37:29.780-04:00The larger point, Kevin, is that Newman founds his...The larger point, Kevin, is that Newman <i>founds</i> his idea of the university upon Revealed Religion. The question is this. If “secular liberal education” <i>has to</i> treat Revealed Religion as “confabulation,” then in what sense can it rest upon foundations poured by Newman?D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-4633007831710591832010-09-20T22:35:04.533-04:002010-09-20T22:35:04.533-04:00“Secular liberal education has to treat religious ...“Secular liberal education has to treat religious utterance . . as so much confabulation,<i> exactly as it should.</i>”<br /><br />Defend this statement, especially the <i>has to</i> and the last four words.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-86446117098636981732010-09-20T22:22:15.120-04:002010-09-20T22:22:15.120-04:00Hello, the point is that a Scripture or a church o...Hello, the point is that a Scripture or a church or a religious dogma cannot be the ultimate source of normativity in a secular learning environment, i.e., it cannot be the thing that provides "integrity," per Burstein's quote, for the institution as a whole. Secular liberal education has to treat religious utterance, especially ones that parade as statements of fact, as so much confabulation, exactly as it should. Still, there is a role for religion in education, but it should never set the telos for rational inquiry. Never. Best, KevinKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-80143136022702992722010-09-20T20:07:31.232-04:002010-09-20T20:07:31.232-04:00Kevin,
Nowhere in the contemporary secular univer...Kevin,<br /><br />Nowhere in the contemporary secular university are “revealed truths” studied as revealed truths, es<i>pec</i>ially not in comparative religion (where, by definition, all religious truth is relative), even less so in the humanities.<br /><br />In actuality, engineering and the sciences are far more likely to be founded upon “revealed truths” that are accepted as the basis for further inquiry and not submitted to reinvestigation.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-62563272621340963502010-09-20T19:40:52.295-04:002010-09-20T19:40:52.295-04:00"What Burstein does not say is whether Newman..."What Burstein does not say is whether Newman’s conception of education must be abandoned as a relic of the past (and the peculiar treasure of Catholics), or whether it can be adapted at all to a secular setting like her own state university."<br /><br />I'm interested to hear more on this, too, but rather suspect that N's conception has already been adapted - or rather metabolized - by such secular settings as colleges and universities, where a respect for rational inquiry requires that "revealed truths," no matter the religion from which they issue, be firmly subordinated to healthy skepticism, to consistency, justification, and an appreciation for facts, etc. Which is why we study "revealed truths" in comparative religion and humanities courses, and not in physics or biology courses.<br /><br />Best,<br />KevinKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-18810625649238035252010-09-20T19:11:51.213-04:002010-09-20T19:11:51.213-04:00Joyce who was a student at the Catholic University...Joyce who was a student at the Catholic University had a high opinion of Newman's prose.<br /><br />the greatest of English prose writers... not in the Apologia, which he thought rather badly written, but in his sermons. "I have read him a great deal... [in 'Oxen'] where all the other authors are parodied, Newman alone is rendered pure, in the grave beauty of his style. Besides, I needed that fulcrum to hold up the rest... The Church will surely decide to make a saint of him, if only for the numerous conversions that have followed in the wake of his own. At least a Blessed, if they don't succeed in finding a miracle." (WP217) (Willard Potts (ed): Portraits of the Artist in Exile: Recollections of James Joyce by Europeans)michael reidynoreply@blogger.com