Today I was told that I have a tendency to deconstruct views (such as Christianity) but offer no alternative belief system to replace the one being deconstructed. At first I was about to get defensive but then I reflected on the comment. They are absolutely right. I don't offer an alternative because I am not sure if there is, can be, or will be an alternative.
Why does there have to be some ultimate religious claim that exists that separates humans from one another instead of uniting them? Why does there have to be an ultimate leader who tells everyone what to do and what is right and wrong? Why are we so afraid of things being unknown, not having all the answers, not knowing what will happen after we die? Why do these things terrify humans?
Why can't we as humans simply accept the seeming reality of mystery, unanswerable questions; the possibility that we are in fact on this earth alone with only one another to depend on; the possibility that even if God exists and cares about us that he may just be letting us make our own choices and decisions without interference. Or why can't people be okay with the possibility that he may exist and is involved in every persons daily life?
So many differing faith groups claim to have all the answers. They claim they have discovered truth. They claim they have figured out the other side of existence such as heaven, hell, nirvana, sheol etc. And yet it can all be deconstructed.
The only stance that I seem to take presently after having deconstructed my past beliefs is that for some reason love seems to be a possible foundational answer to social constructs, relationships, thoughts, and life in general. Beyond that one aspect of an idealogical position which would then branch into ethics, morality, etc. I really hold no other position with confidence.
I don't know if Jesus was actually divine. I don't know if Buddha was divine. I don't know if there is a hell. I don't know if the earth was created in seven days or a billion years. I just don't know. I can look at the proposed evidence and make what may appear to be reasonable conclusions but in the end I will have to still say... "I don't have all the evidence and thus my conclusions are reserved and only based on possibilites and probabilities and not on 100% innerant fact."
So perhaps rather then saying I am a moderate universalist I may fit more into the category of a deconstructionalist who based on his past views and experiences holds to the possibility of moderate universalism being a reasonable ocean for swimming.
8 comments:
Is it possible to deconstruct decontructionism? And, if so, what would it look like?
When I think about what I am justified in believing, I don't normally think about whether I can be mistaken in believing whatever it is I believe. I think that's too difficult a criterion. As you state so well, the possibility of being mistaken is always present. I think we need some other criterion for belief, i.e., something less demanding than whether or not I can be mistaken. Isn't it sufficient that our beliefs be simply "good enough", where good enough designates that we are justified in holding to such beliefs, even though we could be mistaken?
Yep, that is kind of what I am driving at. I think all of us should be okay with holding some belief system, with the understanding we could be wrong. And therefore not proselytizing, preaching against, putting down, etc.
BUT when something is abhorently illogical. I think there is a place for saying, "Ya in my opinion this makes no sense, its okay if you choose to believe it but at this stage of my research I don't agree."
Hence why I am stating I think that a moderate position on universalism works for me because of my past experiences and research. Based on that simple criteria I can say, "I feel comfortable holding to this particular view with the full knowledge that I could be wrong and probably am wrong in certain areas that I havn't worked through yet."
What do you think?
I think we're in essential agreement about loosening the criteria for belief. I would only add that logical consistency, for me, is not quite enough to demonstate plausibility. Plausibility seems to require more than mere logical possibility, i.e., lots of things may be logically possible, but still not be worthy of serious epistemic consideration. For example, it's logically possible that Joseph Smith really did receive revelations granting him divine authority to take more than one wife, but I still don't believe (based on mere logical possibility) that Smith really did receive such revelations.
I like your thoughts on that. I guess what I mean when dealing with illogical is the idea that
A dog is brown. A cat is brown. Therefore a cat must be a dog.
And I see this all the time just at higher levels of discussion, usually with a foundationalism approach to the view.
For example, God created the world therefore God must want to communicate with his creation therefore he created the bible therefore we know the bible is innerant.
That type of logic I call illogic and that type of view I can't agree with. I am okay if they want to believe it but the fallacy just screams at me.
I like what you have to say about plausibility and possibility ( and probability would fall in their as well) though. That is very insightful and helpful to me as I think through these issues.
What you seem to be describing is sometimes referred to as a non sequitur, which could be defined as a conclusion that does not follow from its premises. In formal logic, we say that such arguments are not well-formed, or that they are not valid forms of reasoning.
I do enjoy our discussions, and I hope you do too.
Post a Comment