Some
say that Theology is all that matters for Christians, since there is a
“metaphysical priority” in naming theological truths. Ok. Well, maybe a quibble
or two about metaphysics, though not for now. But even if theology appeals to
metaphysics, theology is not all that matters. I would wager that it is equally
important to hold to a “physical priority” in naming scientific truths. To go
down this path means that Priority will depend on what subject is being
discussed. If we’re talking about loving our neighbor, then theology will have
the priority, whereas if we’re talking about cells and molecules, science will
have it. I’m suggesting that both matter; each priority has its own voice,
which needs to be heard. Building off that, I’d then propose that a dialogue
between them is essential for deeper understanding. That is, through dialogue
we will discover that the metaphysical and the physical have some relation to,
yet also some distinction from each other. Working out which is which will lead
to an increasing credibility and open up possibilities for finding out more
about what’s true.
If you're interested, as of 2 minutes ago, this book was @73% off - $3.93.
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Spiritual-Rhythms-Book-3/dp/1938367154/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450680238&sr=1-3&keywords=laughery
Recently,
I read a piece on a ‘big’ issue, which was arguing against another opinion. The
author of the piece claims to be a Christian who values life in all
circumstances. Then there was a comment critique that went something like: it
‘doesn’t matter’ what this person (writer) values; all that’s really important
is ‘what’s valuable in itself.’ This comment is a typical criticism of what is
perceived as a subjective view, which supposedly makes ‘value’ person (in this
case writer) relative. I accept the critique with a couple of caveats. I would
wager there is also a problem with the comment since the commenter is
apparently arguing for or claiming access to an entirely objective view of
value. But, it seems to me, there is no ‘solely’ objective view available. If
that’s the case, it means that what has value for the writer of the piece
should be considered as important; it does matter, but it cannot stand alone.
If value is simply value ‘for me’ then all values are equal and this would
create problems. Value ‘in itself’ however, still has to be determined by
exploring and then dialoging with other options, though the only way I know of
to accomplish this is through oneself. Thus, when it comes to value and much
else, there are two problems (subjectivity – value only ‘for me’ / objectivity
– value only ‘in itself’), not just one. To counter these and guard against the
tendency to polarize, I’d suggest a “subjective objectivity” where both have a
role to play in discerning what is valuable.
