tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-975543236652939194.post6984924999166704809..comments2023-05-08T02:11:39.847-07:00Comments on It's a Sic et Nonderful Life: Departure from Dogmatism Need Not Mean IrreligionS. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08843076081982674203noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-975543236652939194.post-64962165143644167592012-04-18T07:10:53.529-07:002012-04-18T07:10:53.529-07:00It depends on what you mean by relativism, I think...It depends on what you mean by relativism, I think. I don't believe in the relativism of reality - that is, I believe there is some external reality which is independent from our mind. This reality is what we seek to know and understand, and we mean by truth nothing other than our beliefs and actions being in harmony with this reality.<br /><br />However, there is another sort of relativism that I do ascribe to, which is simply the relativism of representations of that reality. The most primary is that we are bound by a physiological relativism - that is, our basic experiences are not unmediated interactions with reality but are rather mediated by the representations of reality provided by our senses, representations that are dependent not only on reality but on our physiology. The world we experience with our five senses would be quite different than the world an alien with the ability to "see" X-rays, smell the presence of protons, or so forth would experience, even though both worlds are representations of the same reality. There is also a symbolic relativism - that is, the symbols that we use mentally to represent reality in our own minds and the symbols we use to communicate about and represent reality to others are products both of our physiology and our social, cultural, and historical circumstance, and these symbols have various characteristics and limitations when it comes to representing that reality (if you've ever had to translate from one language to another, you are probably well aware of the difficulties of the task; translations are not neutral "equivalencies" but are genuine interpretations, because moving from one set of symbols to another means dealing with the relativistic nature of symbols). Of course, I do not think that we are somehow completely "cut off" from reality, because the representations we use really are representations of that reality - they really do convey information about reality. It's just that they are not perfect representations, and there is indeed some give and take that must be accepted when evaluating the truth of any given representation - that is, our symbols are not simply and absolutely "true" or "false," but their truth or falsity is dependent on an analysis of their contexts as symbols. Think of geocentrism, for example: it's not absolutely "false." It is true when thinking about certain contexts and frames of reference and false in others - though it just so happens that it the contexts in which it is true are quite narrow, limiting, and unenlightening compared to the frames of reference in which it is false.S. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08843076081982674203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-975543236652939194.post-85345634179894453462012-04-17T17:18:39.964-07:002012-04-17T17:18:39.964-07:00Excellent essay, Ellis. I agree with much of it. T...Excellent essay, Ellis. I agree with much of it. Though I have a few concerns, I fear that this "critical appropiation" of the tradition might lead to a certain type of relativism and to interpreters twisting the faith to whatever they want it to mean. I still think that critical dialogue is the best way to go, but we should always be cautious. But in the end, I think that a thoughtful faith is a better and more rich one. Afterall our entire tradition could be considered a conversation of some sort. And your approach to it reminds me of my approach to Scripture in all its lovely imperfections. I look forward to seeing where this will go. Keep up the good work.Brian Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05378264978841401189noreply@blogger.com