Comments on: How Scriptural Authority Might Work http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/02/how-scriptural-authority-might-work/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/02/how-scriptural-authority-might-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1298 Julian Sanchez Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:02:09 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1341#comment-1298 Jon- That's a fair point, but the Dawkins-style argument still works with some modification. Certainly, there are plenty of moral arguments--like certain theorems in logic or math--that an untutored person will find counterintuitive. And since these are cumulative disciplines, there are plenty of these that no individual, however smart, would have come up with alone. Nobody in a society that's barely developed arithmetic is going to suddenly come up with vector calculus. But once the argument is laid out for you, it's still the case that the individual can see why it's true independent of the authority of the author. There are, of course, plenty of formulae I used to use in math because, well, Descartes said so, and I'll assume it's right. But the confidence there is grounded in the thought that I could in principle do the derivation myself, as many other people have, to confirm that it holds. Jon-
That’s a fair point, but the Dawkins-style argument still works with some modification. Certainly, there are plenty of moral arguments–like certain theorems in logic or math–that an untutored person will find counterintuitive. And since these are cumulative disciplines, there are plenty of these that no individual, however smart, would have come up with alone. Nobody in a society that’s barely developed arithmetic is going to suddenly come up with vector calculus. But once the argument is laid out for you, it’s still the case that the individual can see why it’s true independent of the authority of the author. There are, of course, plenty of formulae I used to use in math because, well, Descartes said so, and I’ll assume it’s right. But the confidence there is grounded in the thought that I could in principle do the derivation myself, as many other people have, to confirm that it holds.

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/02/how-scriptural-authority-might-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1297 Jonathan Goff Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:27:00 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1341#comment-1297 Julian, I think that your reasoning in your third paragraph is a fairly decent explanation. Basically, as you say, the answer is a bit more nuanced than the overly simplistic "100% Bible Derived" vs "100% Antecedent" theories you mention in paragraph two. Myself, I tend to think that reason and faith are not neccessarily mutually exclusive, and that just because some of the truths in the scriptures appear to be self-evidently true, doesn't mean that all the "heavy lifting" is being done by one's own moral judgement, and that we would be better off without such dusty tomes. In fact, I would say that one of the benefits of the scriptures is that they point out moral truths that aren't a priori obvious, that the "natural man" as it were would think the opposite. Anyhow, I'm not sure if any of that made sense, and I may just be completely missing your and Dawkin's respective points, but I figured I'd chime in. ~Jon Julian,
I think that your reasoning in your third paragraph is a fairly decent explanation. Basically, as you say, the answer is a bit more nuanced than the overly simplistic “100% Bible Derived” vs “100% Antecedent” theories you mention in paragraph two. Myself, I tend to think that reason and faith are not neccessarily mutually exclusive, and that just because some of the truths in the scriptures appear to be self-evidently true, doesn’t mean that all the “heavy lifting” is being done by one’s own moral judgement, and that we would be better off without such dusty tomes. In fact, I would say that one of the benefits of the scriptures is that they point out moral truths that aren’t a priori obvious, that the “natural man” as it were would think the opposite.

Anyhow, I’m not sure if any of that made sense, and I may just be completely missing your and Dawkin’s respective points, but I figured I’d chime in.

~Jon

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/02/how-scriptural-authority-might-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1296 Julian Sanchez Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:39:49 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1341#comment-1296 Nope; I didn't think I said anything of the sort. Nope; I didn’t think I said anything of the sort.

]]> By: Gene Callahan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/02/how-scriptural-authority-might-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1295 Gene Callahan Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:57:20 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1341#comment-1295 Julian, I wonder if you're falling into the rationalist fallacy that holds it possible to clear your mind of all moral tradition, and then devise a "fresh, uninfected" moral code from scratch. I hold (following Oakeshott) that such an approach is impossible, and that any possible moral code must be rooted in some concrete, existing practice of moral behaviour. Reason can critique and amend that tradition, but is incapable of generating morality from a blank slate. Julian, I wonder if you’re falling into the rationalist fallacy that holds it possible to clear your mind of all moral tradition, and then devise a “fresh, uninfected” moral code from scratch. I hold (following Oakeshott) that such an approach is impossible, and that any possible moral code must be rooted in some concrete, existing practice of moral behaviour. Reason can critique and amend that tradition, but is incapable of generating morality from a blank slate.

]]>