Peter Rollins writes some pretty challenging stuff: challenging to understand, and then more, too.
His recent post One day I hope to believe in God… is no exception. He reports that a BBC interviewer asked whether he believed in God, and his response is/was to deconstruct the question. The deconstruction is challenging to follow, for those of us not well-versed in philosophical linguistics (and a goodly proportion of the blog commenters are all at sea, it seems).
And I'm torn: on the one hand, I have much sympathy with the approach: 'I believe in God' is a hugely nuanced statement, and not one against which I simply want to put a tick. I believe in a great many things. And the extent to which those beliefs has an effect varies hugely.
But on the other hand, this feels like splitting hairs: Bill Clinton attempted to make an argument based on a question about what the meaning of 'is' is: and everyone laughed. Most people imagine they understand what 'Do you believe in God?' means: and would expect it to allow a yes/no answer. Is it arrogant, elitist, or gnostic, to suggest otherwise? Is doing so a sign of great insight, or a sign of philosophical study having disappeared up its own rear end?
2 comments:
Take the question at face value, all else reveals a desire to avoid giving an answer. I am but a simpleton though :)
Martin,
You have a good point (the first sentence, not the second :) ).
But perhaps I've been an academic too long. It seems time to get past the kind of is/isn't debates that Richard Dawkins wants to have: his approach is naive and unrealistic. I'm not sure we gain anything by mirroring it.
Post a Comment