A few words from St. Augustine in A Literal Interpretation of Genesis to justify the theological tag:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
That was what? Over 1,500 years ago? Christians are generally, obviously ahead of the curve.
Yet, the secular commentators that Augustine was speaking of were probably also ridiculously wrong according to modern conceptions.
ReplyDeleteThus, we criticize one group for being wrong in criticizing another group who is also wrong.
Except they weren't ridiculously wrong, either the secular commentators or Augustine. Not suggesting they weren't wrong and in some cases even were not understandably wrong, but they weren't ridiculously so.
ReplyDeleteWhat we don't criticize them for being wrong, is in that they're refusing to accept the obvious due to religious beliefs that they refuse to bring into a fuller understanding. That right there is huge, as it is not only in the afore criticized scientific understandings that their intellectual honesty is in question but their religious ones as well. Why someone is wrong, makes all the difference.
Whether the wrongness is ridiculous or not seems to depend entirely on the perspective of those observing, not any relation to the ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say obvious, you have to keep in mind that you don't mean that which is obvious because it was true. You're saying that it is obvious because it is generally accepted.
If we ignore the subjective terms of "ridiculous" and "obvious" it still comes down to the idea that we elevate some incorrectness over others because it is more socially acceptable.
It's rather akin to the recent darwinius find, which was proclaimed the missing link a few months ago. Christians who denied it at the time were mocked. Now, the consensus seems to be that this creature has no relations to man at all. Thus, the Christians who denied it were right, and the scientists were wrong. However, the perspective on the people hasn't changed, because one view is still socially acceptable, and one is not.
Actually, I mean neither when I use the term obvious, but a characteristic of a given. One of history's greatest ironies is that it is actually the obvious that we so often miss, and is rarely glimpsed at by those who hold to what is generally accepted.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the question of ridiculous is dependent upon perspective, but so what? What perspectives are saying what about the beliefs and actions of others?
The elevation of differing levels of incorrectness hardly seems a purely subjective function, without denying the subjectiveness nature of this enterprise. Merely cause we disagree on the specifics, hardly negates the value of discerning these distinctions of incorrectness. Reducing to merely social acceptability is an insult to me and you. It's mere happen chance as to the social acceptability of the positions and their epistemologies, not devoid of ethical considerations.