t is my perception that when one holds a 'Truth' as inviolate, it is very difficult for them to stand by and watch what they know to be Truth to be trampled upon.
Frankly, I don't think we get that far.
I have quoted Ricoeur before, and will do so again:
"... (but) philosophy is not simply critical, it too belongs to the order of conviction.
And religious conviction itself possesses an internal, critical dimension." (Paul Ricoeur,
Critique and Conviction, "Biblical readings and Meditations", Polity Press, 1989. p139)
I am not trying to convince anyone to be Catholic. Or that only Catholicism is right. I am not here to preach or convert. I do not even really discuss my own theological musings.
But I do challenge the commonly held idea that religion, and especially Catholicism, does not possess a critical dimension, when it's evident that those who make such idiotic declarations show no critical insight whatsoever!
All I do is defend orthodox doctrine from distortion or misrepresentation, and argue that it is reasonable, rational and logical.
I cannot for example, convince you of the Trinity. But I can argue, reasonably, rationally and logically, how the doctrine is derived from Scripture, and how it was not something dreamt up out of nowhere in the 4th century.
And I will point out when someone states what they think the Trinity is, or what it isn't, when they clearly have no idea what the doctrine actually says.
Everyone is entitled to opinion, but no-one is entitled to pass off their opinions as the content of someone else's faith.
Religious conviction is like love, it's not (or rather, only very rarely) arrived at through a process of reason, logic, etc.
(And, of course, I challenge the great panjandrums who pitch up here periodically to inform us all that they are IT and offer their pompous-ass commentaries on the world's great Religious Traditions.)
The rub is that for one to hold that their Truth is the only Truth, they must be able to back up their Truth with evidence.
Well, with a reasoned argument. Truth is reasonable, rational, logical ... or we're all wasting our time.
In theology there is no evidence.
Oh, I think there is. When someone says the Doctrine of the Trinity was invented in the 4th century, when we have documentary evidence from the 2nd, then there is evidence.
One can attempt to share that evidence with others. But the evidence they perceive is just as good as yours. Even if it isn't! Why? Because it is theirs.
Ah. Here we need to look at evidence, and interpretation.
Again, one has to accept every viable point of view. But when someone says, it is this way and this way only, then again, that's not reason nor theology, that's ideology. John Shelby Spong has famously made a fortune out of just that. Sadly, the church that he has shaped is dying on its feet faster than any Christian denomination in the US ... there's more to religion than fashion.
Gentlemen, you are tilting at windmills. To share your Truth is great. To think you are using reason is fantasy.
Oh, I can't agree with that. Test the reasoning of Paul Ricoeur or Bernard Lonnergan. Read Aquinas, a master of the reasoned argument.
Better yet, watch
Denys Turner and explain what he's saying to me, please?
