As vigorous discussion continues on the legacy of the Pope, American Blogger and journo Matt Welch answers the question posed above with the neat answer “the citizens who overthrew communism”.
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Still no luck with Trackback Mark.
For example, the following is the code for this post – oui?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/04/08/who-won-the-cold-war/#comments
Try this, C.L.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/04/08/who-won-the-cold-war/trackback
One thing that’s not clear from Welch’s article is that actually the prime causes of the USSR’s fall were economic – which is nicely ironic in a Marxist way!
yup! we are all Marxists now …
(Chicago-ites anyway)
It’s even implicit in the argument that Reagan’s defence spending overburdened the Soviet economy – but actually it goes much deeper – the lack of incentives for innovation in a command economy, the USSR’s trade and financial decisions in the 70s etc etc. But this doesn’t fit with the “heroic narrative” of Reaganism, the Neo-Cons etc.
North Korea and Cuba were/are in much worse condition but I don’t see them going down the USSR slope.
I think people have forgotten poor old Gorby.
It was He who was mainly responsible for the changing of the State.
Jeez, Havent you been watching the news? It was Il Papa.
And speaking of which, where LPs Vatican corresponsdent? Who got the numbers for the top job?
Persoanlly , Im ABP –
anyone but Pell.
I like the Jesuit Cardinal from Buenos Aires…
I want the Nigerian. A black Pope would absolutely make my day.
Very conservative, that Cardinal Arinze, though! Still…
Is there a Borgia candidate this time round?
Not sure, Andrew!
ML, if the Jesuit Cardinal became the White Pope, he might also be a Black Pope (traditional name of the Jesuit Father-General…)
Imagine the conspiracy theories with a Jesuit Pope! Dan Brown might even write another book instead of recycling the old one endlessly!
where is Rafe? he should be here to tell us that Quadrant won the Cold War
Where indeed! He also promised a debate on free trade under the rule of law on the faith & fact thread and then never turned up!
Jason, Matt Welch got in first.
“Even if you reject the very premise of “Who Won the Cold War?” (my favorite answer is: “the citizens who overthrew communism”), certainly it’s possible and arguably necessary to give recognition to those who called an evil system by its proper name, and gave inspiration to the courageous dissidents and protesters who did the heavy lifting.”
Sorry Mark, I don’t have a thesis to write but I have a 9 to 5 job and a family, also a website to build, a sick person in the house and a major brief on freedom and justice to prepare. And some book reviews to write and an essay on Jacques Barzun. Also I have reservations about writing major posts as a part of a thread. Also I had the feeling it was drifting off the original topic.
No need to apologise, Rafe!
Incidentally, there’s just been a well argued and lengthy response to your question on the IR thread.
Candidates? Here’s the man! Show your support, buy some merchandise.
Nice quote Rafe. Apparently we’re supposed to believe Pius XII could have ended the Holocaust by ’speaking out’ but on the evils of the USSR John Paul achieved nothing substantive by doing so. Strange notion.
Im not a big fan of Ratzinger myself, hes too much of a hardline conservative. Id love to have a black Pope, but you like say, hes very conservative too. I dont want an ultra-progressive that will compromise the bible either, but one that will let priests marry and lift the contraception ban would be good. Which progressive/moderate has the best shot?
C.L., Ratzinger’s brother said today that he’ll never be Pope. But maybe that’s just a campaign ploy? Who knows?
Nic, I doubt that any of the leading candidates are progressive. JP2 was a moderate compared to some of the Cardinals.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compromise the bible”. Catholic teaching is that authority derives from the Bible and tradition. Tradition is held to be a way that revelation develops and the doctrine that the magisterium (the teaching office) is inspired by the Holy Spirit suggests that the Bible is by no means the sole criterion for judgement. The doctrine of purgatory, for instance, rests on very shaky biblical foundations, which are really proof texts interpreted after the doctrine itself was developed.
Perhaps you could expand?
I just thought the site was amusing. I don’t back Ratzinger – or anyone specifically.
Is the site serious or a parody, C.L.?
Cassidy has more chance than Pell. Anyone who seriously suggest Pell is clearly just biased.
They could make a Hollywood movie of this weekend called “One Funeral and a Wedding” starring Hugh Grant as Prince Charles and Simon Callow as Camilla.
Come now, Hugh Grant is too good looking to be Charles.
Mark, I’m referring to the ordination of gay or female preists. The Catholics may have their extra traditions, but when they start contradicting the bible, then they are definately in error, no matter whether they believe in Sola Scriptura or not. Id think that going against the words your religion is supposebly founded upon is a major mistake.
Nic, yes I saw that a fairly robust debate on those issues took place at your place. I have no desire to cavil with you for expressing your faith as you see it, but I disagree. On issues of sexuality, I refer you to the comments of Michael Carden, whose Doctorate is in Biblical Studies, on this thread. The Anglican Church concluded after much theological reflection that there was no impediment to the ordination of women priests, and as their sacramental theology and ecclesiology is not too dissimilar to that of Catholics (at least as far as High Anglicans go), I suspect the same conclusions could be drawn. This indeed is probably why Cardinal Ratzinger advised the late Pope not to make an infallible declaration on the topic. It’s a matter of Church Order, and it’s possible that there will be female Catholic priests in due course.
“This indeed is probably why Cardinal Ratzinger advised the late Pope not to make an infallible declaration on the topic.”
Source?
I’m afraid I can’t recall, C.L. – an article I read recently which was quite favourable to Ratzinger. Good requiem mass – Ratzinger’s statement that JP2 had gone immediately to heaven is consistent with the belief that saints spend no time in purgatory, which was significant.
Yes, it was marvellous. I wonder – speculate – whether there isn’t a personality in Ratzinger of a different kind to that popularly remarked upon. Might it be a cross for him to be this so-called ‘enforcer.’
On the question of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I would have thought that as possible infallible statement this would require casuistry of a superior sort to repudiate:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
No it’s not infallible, C.L., or even possibly infallible.
Vatican I defined infallibility as follows:
“when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is when as the pastor and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his highest apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals that must be held by the Universal Church, he is empowered, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed to endow his Church”.
There are six conditions following from Vatican I for an infallible exercise of the magisterium. Let’s leave aside five, because one is enough to negate the belief that this statement is infallible. “A doctrine of faith and morals…” is not a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, but a matter directly concerned with revelation or the “deposit of faith”. Thus, the only exercise of infallibility since the time of Vatican I was the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
This encyclical of JPII is part of the “ordinary magisterium” and therefore binding on Catholics, but is not irreformable. What JPII was doing was leaving his successors very little wiggle room.
On Ratzinger, there may be some truth in that. He was once of course seen as a theological liberal and strongly supported by his friend and colleague Hans Kung when appointed to a chair in Tubingen.
Mark is right. Ratzinger was once considered a liberal. He was also a very outstanding theologian. Also Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not count as an infallible statement. THere are a suite of conditions laid down by Vatican 1 that it does not meet. But there have been two infallible papal statements not one. The first was the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception back in the 1850s, I think. I’ve forgotten which Pope. Then there was Pope Pius’ stateemnt on the Assumption back in 1950. THat was the only one since Vatican formally defined the doctrine in 1870.
One of JP2’s dreams was a reconciliation of the Roman and Eastern CHurches, which might have been one motivator of his stance on women’s ordination. HOwever, the irony is that his imperial style only alienated further many of the Eastern Orthodox communion who have long memories of Roman centralism and authoritaranism, which played a big part in the Great Schism to start with. On women’s ordination check out http://www.womenpriests.org/index.asp
Particualrly important are the rituals one can find there for ordaining women to the diaconate dating from the first Christian millennium. Interesting too are the arguments from Mary in tradition in support of ordaining women. I think they are quite valid and furthermore thnk they are also reinforced by the inner dynamics of the tradtional rosary (i.e. sans JP2’s mysteries of light). I plan to write something about that in the near future.
I did say as “possible” infallible statement – being aware of the definitions. (Which themselves are presumably subject to development). I think you might find there’s more room for debate on this than your answer allows Mark.
The priesthood is considered a constitutive part of the Church, which Church is hierarchical (Vatican II) and whose priesthood is and always will be essential. It wouldn’t be hard – and, indeed it has been done – to argue the nature of the priesthood is indeed a question of faith par excellence.
Consequently, if one were to analyse the elements of that priesthood – for whatever reason – a papal statement in which the Petrine ministry is explicitly invoked wouldn’t merely be wiggle-proof but more or less un-renounceable. Defining ‘faith’ for the infallibility checklist can no longer be delimited to the Mariology of a ‘perfect society’ but, pursuant to Vatican II especially, now involves consideration of the various ministries within the ‘people of God.’
Ecclesiological development may, then, have overshot the First Vatican Council’s understanding of what ‘faith’ meant for the purposes of infallibility.
A few other points: Rome tends to get formulaic blame for everything – including the Great Schism. Another reading is that the East behaved in a theologically reckless and petulant fashion at the time and only had itself to blame for the final break. All sorts of women’s ordination proponents will claim to have ‘found’ something in early Christendom to support their arguments. That’s because there were so many novelties – eventually dealt with – that one can find whatever one’s looking for. Mary had nothing to say about women’s ordination so that’s not even worth discussing.
The definitions were in fact developed by Vatican 2 – but I thought I’d stick to safer ground with Vatican 1, C.L. As to the nature of the priesthood, I think you’ll find that Lumen Gentium is consistent with an interpretation that while the sacrament of orders is of divine foundation, the forms it takes are historical – for instance the restoration of the permanent Diaconate, or the conditional ordination of married Anglican priests to the Catholic priesthood. It’s also quite consistent to hold the doctrine of apostolic succession without believing that Christ had the formed intention of establishing a hierarchy. There’s room for theological debate about all this – that’s one of the ways that the Church remains Catholic – it’s open to reason and it’s comprehensive and people aren’t going to be chucked out for legitimate differences on the interpretation of dogma. The instruction to stop discussing it – issued by Ratzinger not JP2 – implicitly recognises that it’s possible and legitimate to continue theological discussion, but that it’s inopportune – another matter of Church order.
Vatican 2 circumscribed infallibility with the requirement that the doctrine be taught by all the Bishops as well as the Pope.
As to the invocation of the Petrine Ministry, go back and read stuff by Paul VI. It’s nothing new, and not significant for the infallibility question – it’s just that JP2 is really emphasising – this is the magisterium teaching, and you have to believe it.
You’re trying to turn Newman on his head, C.L., his notion of the development of doctrine was that one should be extremely cautious about it – hence the circumscriptions surrounding infallibility put there even by Vatican I (to some degree against the wishes of Pius).
In the debates leading up to Humanae Vitae, when the Commission Paul VI appointed recommended that the attitude to contracteption be relaxed, no one suggested that the previous teaching was infallible – not even people like Cardinal Ottaviani. What they appealed to was that Paul VI would be overruling his predecessors in their ordinary magisterium. Wiggle room was found by theologians, but a number of factors prevented Paul VI from acting on the majority’s recommendation.
JP2 however has been much more prepared to overrule his predecessors – often quite legitimately – as in retracting condemnations of Judaism – but many in the Vatican opposed this for the precedent which would allow teaching such as that on women’s ordination to be changed in the future. Hence the attempts to overdo the rhetoric on such questions and the political stakes involved in the movement for instant canonisation.
But Holy Mother Church (and the Holy Spirit) is full of surprises – maybe I’ll have a female priest singing my requiem mass in a few decades…
Ps – I think you’re overplaying your hand on this one, C.L. You’d struggle to quote respectable theological opinion in favour of your position from whatever stripe. You could make a stronger argument without trying to bolster it with infallibility – though I’d still disagree. Largely by citing Hans Kung I suspect
Respectable theological opinion:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 28, 1995):-
“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25. 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”
It will never be overturned.
Nothing like a good theological argument conducted in a learned and civilised fashion after midnight, I’m constantly saying.
But while we’re doing arguments from authority, C.L. don’t forget Michael’s Doctorate is in Religious Studies and Mark used to be a postgrad theology student.
He might have also mentioned that there’s some theological opinion that ordinations by priests are valid under extraordinary circumstances – another Church Order thing.
Yes, but statements by the CDF aren’t infallible, C.L., not even statements that something else is infallible. That’s the whole point.
You may be right that it won’t be overturned but it isn’t infallible teaching, Cardinal Ratzinger notwithstanding.
C.L., from an essay by Fr Peter Burns SJ: (all of it’s worth reading – note particularly the sentence I’m quoting in bold)
The section I’ve ommitted discusses the requirement of the assent of all the Bishops in the world. The last of Fr Burns’ essays discusses the question of the canonical requirements for infallibility.
Kim: No, no, I don’t want any reputed authority on my part, due to any degrees I have or any other qualification, to silence anyone else.
CL: After the spectacle last night of a Papal funeral attended by a large number of rabbis, imams, brahmins and Orthodox bishops (not to mention the Archbishop of Canterbury who was unseen) and refelcting on my childhood Catholic experience, I will never say never about anything to do with Catholic Church, Roman or Eastern.
Mark, there is no such thing as a priest in Christian church unless you referr to Peter’s proclamation from the O/T that we are a royal priesthoood.
As far as being a Minister is conerned women are barred because of 1 Tim3 and Titus 1.
It also bars single men and men with young children as well!
does the Pope go to purgatory according to Catholic doctrine?
Homer, in Catholic Christianity, there very definitely is a priesthood and one established by Christ, the order of Melchizedek. How that priesthood is demarcated is another matter. Interestingly, I’ve read some Eastern Orthodox theoolgy that argues that Baptism is a rite of ordination and that would also Wetern Catholic traditions by which the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony are or can be (in t he case of the former) conferred by the laity. It is not necessary for a Baptism’s validity to be performed by an ordained priest while in Matrimony, t he priest or any other authorised figure (which nowadays in the Roman church can include nuns or laity, I believe, due the shortage of ordained priests) are simply the witnesses of the marrying couple’s act of Matrimony.
If Baptism is a sacrament of ordination then women and men alike are already ordained to a priestly ministry, the debate is about how many aspects of pristly minstry are open to women.
In Protestant traditions that don’t recognize a priesthood but as you say, have ministers, t here are many that allow women full access, from the ‘liberal’ Uniting Church to many varieties of Pentecostalism. The Anglican and Lutheran churches sit astride the Catholic Protestant divide and now with some exceptions generally ordain women to the priesthood/ministry.
Re Purgatory, a Popoe can go to th ere indeed, and even to Hell – just read Dante to get a glimpse of how medieval Catholics regarded their Popes in the afterlife. With JP2’s funeral what we saw was the more recent approach to death and the afterlife in Roman Catholicism. There is no talk of Hell or even Purgatory in RC funerals nowadys (not the ones I’ve been to anyway) and they are marekd by a much greater confidence in a divine welcoming of the deceased. This is sometnhing that developed some time ago. Some thirteen years ago I went to a funeral for a young lesbian friend who commtted suicide. She had a full concelebrated requiem mass. Indeed, the liturgical colour for funerals nowadays is white.
C.L.: “Mary had nothing to say about women‚Äôs ordination so that‚Äôs not even worth discussing.”
I wasn’t talking about believed to have been said by Mary but rather how Tradition understands and represents Mary. In Tradition Mary is the patron of priests and the model for priests. Priests give Christ in the Eucharist and Mary gave her son to the world, figuratively in the presentation in the Temple and activley at the foot of the Cross. There is a body of medieval iconography of Mary as the priest, all of which is part of Catholic Tradition but neglected and forgotten today
Michael: I respectfully reiterate a point I made above about there being in Christian history any and every kind of novelty upon which one can become fixated for agenda-driven reasons. Also, the idea that Mary is “model for priests” and that the brief artistic representation of that is a capital T tradition is an over- (if not, mis) statement; more powerful, nromative and ‘T’raditional is the idea of in persona Christi. Liberal Catholics like to say Jesus was man of His times with respect to the gender-centric selection of his 12 apostles; when the mood strikes them, however, they say he was a rebel whose familiarity with women was scandalous. Can’t have it both ways.
But you can’t have it both ways, C.L. Since Jesus didn’t do ordinations or appoint Cardinals, surely that’s just tradition?
no he left that to his apostles, mainly Paul & Barnabus and only in a few cities. They appointed bishops/elders.
Timothy and Titus appointed some and the best you could call them are evangleists!
No such things as cardinals.
Such a pity a bishop needs to be a married man witha reverant wife and disciplined children.
not many of them in the Cathgolic denomination.
Thanks Mark.
I find that utterly bizaare however. It is like the Catholic denomination have completely misread Hebrews.
Homer: I’m still waiting for that reference to where in the NT Jesus teaches that the Bible must be central to the Christian life. You keep running away. What’s the matter?
Compulsory mention of Popper for thread over 50 comments…
Mark: As far as I am concerned, the Anglican church and any other church that allows women in a position of authority is wrong. It is clearly stated in Timothy “I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over man“, and since the bible is considered to be the word of God by the overwhelming majority of christendom, and that God’s word is the only perfect and infalible thing (the Pope is considered infalible because he speaks for God, correct?) this verse should effectively be law on the subject. Its a very clear statement with absolutely no room to move – it really does not get much clearer than that. Therefore, any church that ordaines female preists is in error – in fact is willfuly disobeying God’s word.
Whether the Pope has made an “infalible” (yes, scare quotes) declaration against it or not is imaterial as the bible contradicts any such declaration. In my belief, as a Protestant, the Pope is not infailible, but in this case at least, he was right to forbid women priests.
CL , you must be too poped to have red it!
It didn’t have a cardinal number though!
I’m still waiting my idolatrous book worshipper.
Nic – this is an example of taking one verse outside the cultural and social context and treating it as eternally valid. What situation was Paul talking about? What were the prevailing mores? Does Paul have equal weight with Christ who sent women out to evangelise?
The reason you read the Bible that way is simply that the way you read the Bible is influenced by the culture of the Church.
At least the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches recognise that and are thus open to more critical interpretation of scripture.
And anyway, isn’t priesthood meant to be about service not authority?
NIc, for a Catholic of whatever jurisduction, God’s word is Jesus Christ. The book is a product of the community. For conservative Catholics, the book woould be seen as a structuring archetype, to borrow a phrase from Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. For more liberal/progressive Catholics the book is a structuring prototype. Regardless, the book stands within a broader Traditon which includes liturgy and sacraments, theology, spiritual practice, even iconography. In that sense Catholic approaches to scripture resemble traditional Jewish understandings of scripture too. And when I say Catholic I don’t mean modern Catholics only but going back 2000 years of Catholic Christian history, east and west. Likewise, for Jewish understandings of scripture. For someone familiar with these jewish traditions, Paul and the other authors of the New Testament are able to dop what they do because they don’t have a biblical infallibility approach. They couldn’t anyway because there was no such thing as a Bible in their day.
Kim: For context here is the whole section -
“8I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”
The point of the bible is to be eternally valid. If God hadnt meant something to be used now, he wouldnt have written it, would he? Paul got told what to include in his letters and thats what he wrote.
“Does Paul have equal weight with Christ who sent women out to evangelise?”
Yes. Everything Paul wrote was from God, therefore everything he wrote is just as good as anything Jesus said, as recorded by MMLJ.
“The reason you read the Bible that way is simply that the way you read the Bible is influenced by the culture of the Church.”
I try to interpret everything objectively. As far as I can see, its impossible to change the way that sentance is meant without compromising God’s message – which you obviously cant do. Churches that allow different meanings to that sentance have buckled to the feminist lobby and changed the message that God delivered because they think they know better.
“And anyway, isn‚Äôt priesthood meant to be about service not authority?”
In practice its about both, as it is with Elders and Deacons in Protestant churches. The role is both to be servants and to safeguard the faith and well-being of the members of the congregation, but also to lead and teach them – a position of authority. Women are allowed to teach other women, or non-christian relatives, friends, etc – but not Christian men.
Yes. Everything Paul wrote was from God
But Nic, Paul wasn’t God – he was a man, and thus such the degree to which his insights into spirituality have to be taken as moulded by his own personality and his times is considerable. Luther certainly didn’t interpret the Bible as you do, your view is a very recent one.
Additionally, the inclusion and exclusion of certain books in the Canon of the NT is itself a product of a community’s decisions over time.
Luther was the one that reinstated Sola Scriptura after the RCC hijacked the entire religion and added quite a bit of extra doctrine that isnt biblically based, rather a result of the shotgun marriage with paganism. If I have a theological hero, it would be him.
It would be a safe assumption that Paul stayed true to God’s intended message. When God says “write this” to a man such as Paul, you damn well do what you are told.
But that’s my point, Nic. The “transmission” principle – by which the Biblical writers were mere mouthpieces or secretaries for a message dictated by God is a very simplistic view. Nor does it make any sense – as it’s unable to explain the contradictory statements in scripture – including those within the Gospels.
You have a very ahistorical view of things. The Catholic Church (and the Eastern Churches) were it prior to the Reformation. There was no “Roman” Catholic Church as such – a lot of the centralisation of authority and the rigidification of dogma was a Tridentine reaction to the Reformation challenge. You’d need to explain when some body called the “Roman Catholic Church” came along and “hijacked” Christianity. It just doesn’t make sense. Luther’s theology of redemption and grace was Augustinian, but Luther of course preferred to set aside Augustine’s ecclesiology, while Calvin ignored his sacramental theology.
When did this hijack occur? The early Church was itself the forerunner of the Catholic Church. In addition, the NT contains multiple images of Church – which is why Homer’s comments about the requirements for being a Minister in Timothy make no sense. There were no “Ministers” in the sense in which Homer understands them.
Luther is unimaginable without his Catholic background and 1500 years of tradition. You can’t wave a wand and say “the Early Church” or “the Biblical Church” – for a start, you’d have no definition of Trinitarian dogma.
Michael is right – for a Catholic, the ultimate criterion of truth is Jesus Christ as the Word of God not a text written by whomever. And the sense of Christ’s Incarnate Word lives and has meaning within the experiential decision made for Christ but only within the community of the faithful.
I should note that Luther also allowed for tradition in the case of things that were inessential to salvation (hence the limited use of Latin, the Eucharistic vestments and the elevation of the sacrament in many European Lutheran Churches), and he reverted to tradition rather than “sola scriptura” when he was arguing with Zwingli and others over his doctrine of consubstantiation which they argued was unBiblical.
I agree with Mark and Michael on this. But I wonder what justification aside from supposedly eternally valid principles this rests on. It’s clear that “do not kill” etc. can be justified ethically and rationally, but the subordination of women? I can’t believe God would do that.
The Catholic justification for not ordaining women doesn’t rest on St. Paul, btw, it’s on the basis of Christ’s practice and the “unbroken tradition” of the Church.
Luther had to start from the Catholic viewpoint, which was so far removed from the truth that he didnt get all the way back – that and he faced considerable opposition from the Catholic church – he was lucky not to end up like another theologian whos name I cant remember but was burned for having similar ideas.
“it‚Äôs unable to explain the contradictory statements in scripture” – What contradictions? The Bible, by nature, doesnt have any. If there appears to be one, theres probably a problem with your interpretation – thats one of the things I always take into account when forming an interpretation on a biblical issue, if theres a contradiction, youre wrong. Call it simplistic if you like.
The early church in the days of the apostles and for a good time after was persecuted, mostly by death. But still the movement persisted and gained in numbers and influence by mass conversion and sheer determination to forward and keep the faith. Of the top of my head, one Roman Emperor (Constantine?) eventually decided to adopt this new Christian faith as the official religion of the empire. To make this easier he combined both Christianity and the existing paganism into a system that resembled the imperial structure (Pope = emperor and so on). The idea of Pope comes from Jesus saying “upon this rock I shall build my church” to Peter – the idea was that he was referring to Peter when he was actually referring to himself. Because the system was combined with Paganism, and because of the nature of the Roman Empire, there was a lot of extra doctrine added to be bible (priests, infailible Popes, rituals, infant baptism, etc). Since Luther, others churches have had offshoots from the Catholic churches, and so on. Some of them get it right in various areas, some dont. I tend to just say screw them all and live by my own interpretation rather than that of a denomination.
Thats pretty much a basic, vague summary of my understanding of the chain of events.
Yeah Kim, I know the Catholics have other ways of justifying positions, if they change them thats fine (they shouldnt have have them in the first place IMO), but once they start contracting the bible its a wholly different matter.
Nic, if you compare the narratives of events in the Gospels, you’ll find several inconsistencies particularly between the Synoptics and John.
I don’t want to sound in the slightest bit like I’m having a go, because I admire your willingness to profess what you believe in, but your summary is quite wrong in many places. Constantine didn’t make Christianity the official religion of the Empire but rather a legitimate religion which he favoured, and infant baptism dates from the second century if I recall correctly and the earliest liturgical texts (ie rituals) long predate the legitimation of Christianity in the Empire. No particular claims were made for the primacy of the Papacy other than as one of honour before the Roman Empire had fallen in the West. Infallibility was not defined as a dogma until the Nineteenth century.
“The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth”. There wasn’t a pristine Church that Constantine or anyone else perverted – rather a long and complex historical process of development.
I’d very respectfully suggest you do some reading in Church history. There’s also some excellent Protestant theology and exegesis – particularly from Reformed and Lutheran theologians like Barth, Tillich and Bultmann in Germany.
There can be no invisible Church – even Calvin admitted that – every Christian is part of a Church community and tradition and your interpretations are not your own from a tabula rasa reading of the Bible, but coloured by a particular Protestant tradition.
Like I said, it was off the top of my head and quite basic and vague. I have literature lying around that would allow me to make a more accurate and more detailed account, but its getting late and the parents are in bed. My basic understanding appears to be more or less correct though, even if I did get some details an chronology wrong. The major point is that what is written in the bible conflicts greatly with Catholic dogma, and since the early church used the bible – in the form of the gospels plus the various letters that were sent out and the direct, God inspired leadership of the apostles – one can conclude that the Catholics perverted the intended message of the bible.
Can you give me a source for the infant baptism pre-dating the formation of the Catholic church? I was sure it was a Catholic invention. Interesting.
And I assure you, I have studied and continue to study completely objectively with no bias to any side but rather using my own ever changing interpretation as I hear new and better arguments from across christendom. If I didnt I may as well just sit on a pew of whatever church and lap up whatever the guy at the front says – utterly pointless.
A final comment, Nic.
I think that the interpretative position you’re advocating risks falling into Bibolatry – that is to say the worship of the text rather than of the Father in Christ through the Spirit.
Let me try to explain.
There are a number of logia in the Gospels which say something like what Christ says in Mark 9:1 – “Truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power”. On the other hand, Christ also says a number of things like “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk. 13:32).
My first point is that there is an apparent contradiction here – but only apparent. If you read the Gospels as a whole for the message imparted, you can see that Christ is saying that the reign of God is announced here and now in his teaching and his presence, and that you enter into the Kingdom through making a radical decision to place absolute trust in him.
If we move on to this saying – “The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed” (Lk. 17:20; cf. 17:24, Mk. 13:21), and if we place this beside the Apocalypse (a book that almost didn’t make it into the canon) with the lengthy description of the signs that will presage the eschatological return of the Risen Christ, how do we make sense of Christ’s own saying? We could either argue that John (or the Joannine author of the Apocalypse) had a further revelation – but this is inconsistent with the principle that Christ’s revelation is final, sufficient and complete. Or we could read it metaphorically. If you read it literally, then you’re faced with a question as to whom to believe – Christ or the Apocalypse’s author.
Your comment about Paul being “told by God” to write his epistles raises just this issue.
The only standard must be the person and message of Jesus Christ – it’s he that’s our saviour, not a written text. His message is to be discerned in that text, but also in the faith of the church, the signs of the liturgy and the grace of the sacraments, and in the actions of the Spirit in our lives. And by the decision we make to believe and trust in Him – not in a book.
Christ says in Mark (1:15) The time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel. This, as Michael said, doesn’t mean put your faith in books that had not been written. It means put your faith in Jesus the person and his message – his good news.
“The spirit gives life; the letter kills”.
Here endeth Kim’s bible class!
I’m not saying you’d say this – but by your reading, a rebuttal would be “but you’re a woman presuming to teach a man how to read the Bible – it’s forbidden”.
You see my problem?
Hey, C.L., maybe I have a vocation? When you’re Pope Patrick, I’m expecting great things!
Bless you my daughter. May Lk. 10:42 be your guide.
Nic, my comment crossed with yours. I can’t provide a reference off hand – but it’s in a book I’m reading at the moment called “The Church” by Hans Kung.
Here’s a quote I like:
“Even the original testimonies, however, did not simply fall from heaven, are not simply supra-temporal divine documents. Nor are they – as was the hellenistic Jewish view – the writings of ecstatics filled with a divine madness which excludes all individuality and eccentricity, nor yet – as in the view of early Christian theologians – the writings of instruments, who simply transcribed, like secretaries at the dictation of the Spirit. They are not men who are almost unreal in their persons and historical situation, but real men in all their humanity, historicity and fallibility, who bear witness to God’s word in language that is often hesitant and in concepts that are often imprecise. Therefore, given that God’s word can be proclaimed in human language, these testimonies are not sublime or above history, but are fundamentally historical testimonies.”
Hence, as was said above, the doctrine of the Trinity has to be inferred from the NT and is not taught there in the form that it appears in the creeds which are normative for Trinitarian Christians.
We’ve come a long way from did the Pope cause the end of communism! And it’s past my bedtime! Goodnight! (and to quote Dave Allen, may your God go with you!)
Sleep is indeed sounding good right now.
Benedicite te, C.L.
Feels like old times
[perky poster]
Night, all, and bless as Ausculture Jess would say. Bible class resumes on Sunday morning of course!
[signed, Kim the lesbian-identified bisexual Sunday Schoolmarm from Purgatory...]
Well Sunday night for me, Im out most of the day.
So you have something of mine to hack at while Im out tomorrow :p
“I‚Äôm not saying you‚Äôd say this – but by your reading, a rebuttal would be “but you‚Äôre a woman presuming to teach a man how to read the Bible – it‚Äôs forbidden”.”
We are talking as equals, no one has authority over anyone else (its the blogosphere!), and I dont really count this as teaching – Im asking you for your opinion and youre sharing it. A girl I know had this problem where she was uncomfortable discussing something with me because she felt it was too much like teaching, but really I dont see it that way. So go right ahead
None of those are contradictions if interpreted propperly.
“Mark 9:1 – “Truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power”.”
He is speaking of his death and resurection – the coming of the Kingdom, his church. And yes, what you said in your 3rd paragraph.
Yes, there will be no signs of the end. I take the entire bible literally with the exception of Revealation (which is what I think you are talking about?) which is all symbolic – quite a bit of it is actually about the destruction of the Temple in 70AD by the Romans. Some choose to take the book literally which is where the rapture theory is somehow contrived – I disagree with this. There will be no signs of the end, and a symbolic interpretation of Revealation allows for that. I dont think there is a contradiction there.
There is a difference between faith and repentance that gets you to heaven; and living life and running a church as you should. Will something like disobeying the teachings of the bible and putting women in positions contrary to its teaching result in salvation being withdrawn? I dont know, but I believe it is my responsibility to get it as right as I can before I die, and thus am not willing to take that chance. Something might be different from my salvation, but that does not mean its not important to get it right – especially seeing as Im supposed to follow God.
I think a good verse to understand the value of scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Thus the scripture of the bible is our guide to living and contains rules about how to run the church, and should be obeyed.
“I think that the interpretative position you‚Äôre advocating risks falling into Bibolatry – that is to say the worship of the text rather than of the Father in Christ through the Spirit.”
As I said above, its important to obey God and get the teachings right. As the way Im wired I tend to be a head over heart person, so to speak. Its important to be able to get the interpretation of scripture right as well as worship the one who wrote it – which is more an emotional thing. I struggle to get this balance right as others may do in the reverse.
On that note Im going to write something on education in my blog and then sleep.
But I can’t see your justification for reading the rest of the Bible literally and reading Apocalypse metaphorically.
Do you place any priority on any part of the Bible? ie Jesus over St Paul or St Peter? The NT over the OT? The OT is not the Jewish Bible btw but a Christian selection of parts of it – and the reason it’s there is that it was read analogically as prefiguring Christ.
The irony is that these issues were debated in the Eighteenth and Ninenteenth centuries when those seeking to read the Bible as a text largely trumped those who claimed it could not be read as such. The Bible has consequently been the subject of more research, more interpretive effort than any other book in history.
I think Kim would make an excellent Pope, myself.
Nic: ‘I think a good verse to understand the value of scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Thus the scripture of the bible is our guide to living and contains rules about how to run the church, and should be obeyed’
I haven’t checked the Greek of that Passage but I think a case could be made that your interpretation of it is simply that, an interpretation. Indeed, you change scripture to bible. There was no bible as we understand it when 2 Timothy was written. We don’t even know what the author meant to denote by the term scripture. The use of all, I suppose, would indicate something more than the Torah but what else? Would they mean something equivalent to the Greek Bible, which from very early on Christians used as Old testament. Jude and 2 Peter would probably count 1 Enoch as scripture, maybe even Jubilees or Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. We also have no idea of what kind of Christian texts would be counted as scriptural by 2 Timothy. Were the ones in the current canon even all written at the time of 2 Timothy’s writing? We don’t know. Furthermore, I think 2 Timothy is really being stretched when interpreted to mean that full literal adherence to an infallible text that must be obeyed.
Thanks, Michael – I’d take the name of Pope Joan II
Kim, are you toasting us in the new gravatar, or are you muttering “hoc est calix sanguinis meam”?
Mark – “for those who have eyes to see, let them see”
It’s the mystique, Kim!
Sorry for the late reply, Mark – been occupied all afternoon doing some online vestment shopping… just in case, mind
I think the new gravatar is very cool indeed Pope Joan II –
So is there a betting market on Kim vs C.L. for Pope?
congratulations nic on your position from liberals on all sides.
Mark check out acts my young friend there were elders in the church at a very ealry stage. bishops/elders are essentially the same.
Kim, you are essentially saying pay attention to what Jesus says and don’t pay attention to what paul says.This is rot.
All the bible is written by men and breathed by God.
That is why they are both individualised but also consistent.
Michael, I suggest reading a few of Pauls letters makes it very very when it is paul speaking , hats on Ladies, and where God is speaking. Peter regarded Paul’s letters as scripture.
On teaching it is nn coincidence Paul’s letter goes from banning women from teaching men to giving requirements of both Bishops and deacons.
MUst be married with reverent wife and disciplined children.
A strict analogy is given which most denominations ignore.
CL,
I did answer your question and it was a long long funeral.Sorry I didn’t stay up for it.
Pope Peter was chief of the elders, as shown at the Council of Jerusalem. Nothing changes.
Kim:
“But I can‚Äôt see your justification for reading the rest of the Bible literally and reading Apocalypse metaphorically.”
The book of Revelation is a vision to John. It contains a lot of events that you cant really sensibly take literally, in adition to this, a substantial portion is referring to the destruction of the temple in 70AD without actually saying this, thus it is safe to assume that it is meant symbolically. Its kinda like Jesus’ parables.
“Do you place any priority on any part of the Bible? ie Jesus over St Paul or St Peter? The NT over the OT?”
As far as Christian doctrine and rules for living are concerned, the NT is meant for this purpose. The OT law is obsolete, but is still useful for examples of godly people, history, creation, etc. All text in the NT is equal because God wrote all of it – if you take my view.
Michael: Interesting. I dont have an answer for that right now, Ill get back to you on that.
Nic, another example of contradiction in Scripture would be that in John the last supper is the night before Passover whereas in the Synoptics it’s Passover.
All text in the NT is equal because God wrote all of it – if you take my view.
Presumably including the Apocalypse!
There are lots of things in the Gospels which might also be capable of interpretation as symbolic, and the tone of the comments about Jews changes from Paul to some of the later epistles.
“Presumably including the Apocalypse!”
Indeed. Being symbolic doesnt mean its not important.
I think the point Kim was making, Nic, was that there’s nothing to stop anyone regarding other parts of the NT as metaphorical or symbolical if you admit one chink in your literalist armour.
Its not really a chink in the armour, Mark. I read it symbolically because there are clear markers that it is to be read that way. No such markers exist in the rest of the NT. It being a chink in the armour would imply that it weakens the overall case for taking the rest of the NT literally, I dont believe it does that.
Nic, if I had the time, I could find other passages in the NT with clear markers that they are symbolic.
And Michael’s point remains valid. For instance, I’ve just checked the New English Bible (Protestant) against the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) and the passage from the Gospel of John which was chanted at the Pope’s funeral -
“I tell you most solemnly
when you were young
you put on your own belt
and walked where you liked;
but when you grow old
you will stretch out your hands,
and someone else will put a belt around you
and take you where you would rather not go.”
- which is what Jesus says to Simon Peter, foretelling as the text says:
“In these words he indicated the kind of death by which Peter would give glory to God”.
- appears as an appendix in the Jerusalem Bible (as it’s believed to be an interpolation written by someone else after Peter had been crucified, but is part of the Gospel in the New English Bible).
Even now there is disagreement as to what the canonical texts were, and as Michael said, what were they when the Letter you cite was written? I’ll be interested to see if Michael comes back having consulted the Greek.
We could go on this way for a long long time, but get nowhere. But I’ll make one final point. The arguments that you are being confronted with are just that – rational arguments. And rational arguments based on a realisation that the text is of human origin (even if divinely inspired) and in many cases based on the results of decades of textual and exegetical research.
Your response is to say – “God wrote it”.
I note that you didn’t respond to the point about the different timing of the Last Supper in John and the Synoptics, having earlier asserted there were no contradictions in the text.
The problem you have, is having reified the Bible itself as the object of your faith, as soon as you take off your religious hat and admit a single one of these points – and you don’t respond to them with counter arguments but with assertions of belief, then the whole edifice comes crashing down. This is what Kim was getting at when she talked about Bibolatry – you put your faith in a text instead of in a person – Jesus Christ. That’s why I suspect you don’t read theological or exegetical work on the Bible as opposed to devotional texts. But I think we’ve demonstrated that it’s quite possible to have faith – and to have Jesus Christ as the ultimate criterion of truth – without hypostasing Scripture and ignoring rationality.
You’re obviously a smart person, and I fear that this is the way you’ll go – you’ll have this nagging feeling – “but what if there’s a single inconsistency” – that’s why the point about The Apocalypse is important.
So I’d appeal to you to realise that a literalist understanding of the Bible is ultimately self-defeating. If you believe God is your creator, then you should also accept that rationality is God’s gift. Yes there are mysteries, but irrational and blind faith is in the end unsustainable for a thinking person, or at least without setting up some mental Chinese walls which are damaging in the long run.
This is not a Catholic vs. Protestant thing though no Catholics can take a literalist understanding of the Scriptural text if they are true to the faith.
Wow, still going. This is the thing that I love Larva Rodeo, Mark: where else could I find commentary on the Magisterium AND Princess Mary?!!
Apologies for being late to the discussion, but IMO this bible vs. RC church doctrine reminds of the two bald men fighting over a comb. On one side of the Iron Theologian we have the biblical literalists, deferring to the ultimate authority of the gospels. In the other corner, a church doctrine originating in the navels of brainy celibate guys.
Apparently, the bible-bashers have got it wrong ‘cos, well, the bible’s kinda made up and inconsistent and so thoroughly rehashed that it’s not REALLY the true word of God, is it?
But, well, if the people writing the bible probably got it at least partially wrong, what’s so infallible about the church blokes? Oh, that’s right: they represent Christ, and he’s always right, so their interpretation of what he would do and say must be right.
I’m tempted to get involved in the minutiae, but it’s like building cathedrals on quicksand. Moreover, Mark’s already pulled out the big guns by resorting to the “mysteries of God”, etc. so I’m certain that this argument can only end up with the line “if you don’t believe, you can’t understand”, and that’s where I doff me cap and proceed to more rational discourse that doesn’t involve sky-father gods and their miraculous progeny.
I’m thinking of writing regular columns on Princess Mary, Fyodor – perhaps Jason would like me to cross post them at Catallaxy?
This thread, like St Peter in the last biblical quote, has been led in its old age “where it would rather not go”.
Just another example of the wonders of blogging – you put up a 3 line post, and a few days later, woohoo, hey presto! It’s one of the mysteries of the blogging gods, I’d aver…
I bet Jason would LURVE to cross-post on Mazza. I’m all dewy with fevered anticipation just thinking about it.
Fingers crossed, Fyodor!
More importantly, are you supporting the Kimberella for Pope campaign this thread inaugurated? Write to your local Cardinal!
Mark, on the Lord’s supper there are a number of explanations that have been put forward to explain that.
for instance there is the fact that pharisiac and sadducean dating was different, there iscalso the fact that it may have been a sabbath Qiddush.
to be quite honest I find the argument similar to the creationist argument.
I put to them as I put to you what is the essential point of what is being said.
By the way John’s gospel says a lot about signs or as the NIV poorly tranlates miraclous signs as a way of recognising Jesus is the Christ.
I guess ‘rational’ people would have to give it a miss!
It is a bit hard to believe in Jesus and his works if you are saying the book written about is wrong!
Mark,
I’m absolutely opposed to the Joan II movement, with every fibre of my being. Kimberella’s genes are too precious to be wasted on celibacy.
You have a point there, Fyodor, but perhaps she could dispense herself from the requirement!
Homer, I’m not saying the NT is wrong just that to read it literally is wrong!
Would that be an infallible dispensation, Mark?
If 50 posts is a “Popper”, is 100 a “Hayek”?
Woohoo! Hayek! Hayek!
like, whatever… just a bit of a hundred comment celebration. Have I spoiled my chances in a Dr Dean moment?
Fyodor, no celibacy pour moi!
Fyodor, I don’t know if you’ve seen a French movie starring the delectable Anemone – “Tres Catholique” – I was interested to know that this is an idiomatic French expression for “very fishy” or “highly suss”.
Fyoder beat me to the punch about the intrinsic ridiculousness of the theological debates going on here.
Yer god’s all powerful and all knowing right? Basically omnipotent? Yet moves in mysterious ways?
So why all the bureaucracy and argy-bargy over process in order to intermediate between the creator and his or her creations? Sounds to me like a bunch of political hustlers over the centuries are trying to cut themselves in on the action. What’s another word for a middleman again? Oh, yes…Pimp.
Besides, you gonna trust a book that has no biblography?
Got a problem with my comment? Then take it up with your god.
I did. She laffed and bought me a drink.
I thought this thread was about who won the Cold War? how did it get into the hermeneutics of the Bible? (quick scholars – spot the mistake/redudancy in this sentence!)
of course the correct answer is Mises, Hayek, Popper and Friedman (hah! 4 New Right secular gods in one comment!)
aren’t we glad the pope only dies every so often nowadays – these theological disputes can get mighty wearisome
poor Freidrich N – he goes & writes god’s farewell speech and a hundred yrs later it’s like everybody’s a lapsed atheist
hellooooo- god has carked it already
i know it’s rude but see above
Mark,
The movie was “Pas Tres Catholique”. You missed the essential negative – it rather changes your implied subtext. The translation is more like “Not Kosher”, but that title doesn’t have the same Gallic enigma to it, i.e. it’s more reminiscent of organised crime in a New York orthodox jewish baking community.
Anemone is delectable indeed, mais ma vedette preferee a ce moment est la ravissante Audrey Tautou.
P.S. how do you write accents egu etc. on this system?
Audrey Tautou – tres ravissante!
My memory fails me, yet again, Fyodor!
As to accents, I think it depends on your browser. If I want to go to the trouble, I normally cut and paste in from Word.
Cheers.
Fyodor, Audrey Tautou = delicieuse!
Hey, wbb & Nabs – a bit sour from you normally witty atheists! Where’s yr Dionysian joy a la Nietzsche? Come on, get Zarathrusting!
Amazing that Zarathrusting made it past the spam filters!
I think Kimbo (aka Pope Joan II) is going to give Nabs a run for his money in this year’s comment awards.
Zarathrusting? I’m sure there’s a Princess Anne joke in there, but I’m not touching it. Homer?
I would have thought it problematic for atheists to enjoy Dionysus (definitely a theos) or Zarathushtra (prophet of a theos). Come to think of it, I never quite understood why Nietzsche used his name as a leitmotiv. Catchier than “Also Sprach Friedrich”, I s’pose.
Kim, I take a dim view of anybody mocking Nietsche’s views, even if done with affection. Is why the Pope really got my goat. He was always doing it.
I know what you mean, wbb, when he lifted this quote directly from Thus Spoke Zarathustra in his little known encyclical Ad Dionysium Gentium without acknowledgement, I was really pissed:
O my soul, I poured every sun out on you, and every night and every silence and every longing: then you grew up like a vine.
I have emailed the Cardinals to let them know that when I am Pope Joan II, all my encyclicals will be direct from Nietzsche, but with acknowledgement. I have a team of minions and myrmidons working on the Latin translation as we monkeys type.
What comes after a Hayek?
Von Mises?
Feyerabend.
Is Feryerabend worth reading? I was thinking of having a look.
I’ve almost finished Against Method as the start of my quest to read the great books on the philosophy on science. I don’t think Feyerabend was as much of a reletavist as some make him out to be but he was bit of an iconoclast. He had some very interesting points regarding the scientific method (or lack there of) that I find interesting. Then again there were a few moments when I thought his arguments went too far (albeit the book was originally intended to be an exchange with Imre Lakatos. Alas that never happened).
Is he much different to Kuhn (whom I’ve read) – I understood they were saying similar things but coming from varying starting points. But it’s been 7 years since I did philosophy of science!
I haven’t read Kuhn yet but Feyerabend does mention that he agrees with Kuhn to a point. Book is downstairs and I need to re-read to be sure of his arguments. However after some cheap but drinkable Cotes Du Rhone I’m afraid that I shall beg off the question until tomorrow (given the more learned and sober may have their say).
I’d be interested to hear what his main argument is. Kuhn by the way is a very good read – very clear thinker and writer.
Kim and I have been drinking Chardonnay tonight – so I also will beg off as I think it’s time for us to go to bed!
Oh or fuksakes, you guys still think Feyerabend and Kuhn are where it’s at?
It’s the 21st century now. Didn’t you get the memo?
The heavy lifting that underpins how we develop the IP and attention economy opportunites that needs to drive the non BRIC first world countries for the future has already been sketched, limned and framed by Hume, Paulie’s mate Ludwig, GE Moore and the Popper. IE: Perception is the lever.
The real issues now are why we can’t better lever what we should know we can lever, before someone else lays their sticky hands on it. I’ll report back in more detail about this after my lunch with Lawrence Lessig – who is now a real player in how our futures could work – unlike the Hayeks, Kuhns, Feyerabends et al, who’s time came, who did what they did, and who are now just been and gone.
Well Nabs hasn’t come back from lunch yet so for Mark, Feyerabend’s main arguments is the infamous “anything goes” in regards to scientific methodology. Some consider it epistemological anarchy but that it to misread Feyerabend. He wasn’t saying that there is no progress in science (though he was vague regarding what “progress” meant)nor you can’t “do” science but that the act of science doesn’t adhere to a universal scientific method.
Kuhn is mentioned at the end and they do share similar ideals however Feyerabend takes them a tad further.
Thanks, Irant.
I’m not sure Nabs needs to be opposed to the Kuhns and Feyerabands – since they were doing philosophy of science. I don’t see how their arguments are inconsistent with a focus on IP. But then I’m not sure what “perception is the lever” means in this context.
Yeah, I’m not sure what Nabs was doing relating Feyerabend/Kuhn to IP. These people with cat gravatars…I dunno. It worries me.
Cats are the secret rulers of the world, Irant…
Uhm. Having revisted my earlier post here, I should point out it was late and I was pissed. Having said that, I think there’s a big point to made here about the discountinutity between what they them there said back then and what’s going on now.
I’m actually lunching with Laurie Lessig and other players in about a fortnight (Deakin Innovations Lecture shit). Will report back then on current US state of the art thinking about wrangling the global attention economy.
(This comment written while listening to Jodie Foster sing “La Vie C’est Chouette”. Got your attention didn’t I?)