tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post2080874047407523031..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Propositions to Ponder on "How Should We Then Live?"Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-16806210746860311492008-06-15T16:49:00.000-06:002008-06-15T16:49:00.000-06:0012. Contemporary media often manipulate the popula...<I>12. Contemporary media often manipulate the populace through selective reporting and its implicit worldview of naturalism. Christians should critique the worldview of the mainstream media and consult alternative sources. On scientific matters, see The Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/.</I><BR/><BR/>::sigh::<BR/><BR/>Seeing the Discovery Institute on scientific matters is a lot like seeing Elizabeth Taylor for fidelity in marriage.<BR/><BR/>I cannot figure out why you keep turning a blind eye to the ethical lapses of those guys.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-27733540832175006412008-06-10T08:49:00.000-06:002008-06-10T08:49:00.000-06:00Great points from Schaeffer. I love all of his boo...Great points from Schaeffer. I love all of his books and the DVD set for How Should We Then Live. I just began re-watching the DVD's this past week. <BR/><BR/>We must pay attention to culture, history, and worldviews and know how to engage our times for Christ.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-27862196846445807692008-06-08T00:25:00.000-06:002008-06-08T00:25:00.000-06:00Good stuff! I'm a fan of Schaeffer, for sure. Wi...Good stuff! I'm a fan of Schaeffer, for sure. With regard to 7 and 8, though, a couple thoughts/questions.<BR/><BR/>A) "contemporary people" -- insofar as "fact/value dichotomy" is not simply a perennial, flawed response to the "Ideas of Sensation" and "Ideas of Reflection" difference as experienced, surely it is characteristically <I>modern</I> to justify this using empiricist and structuralist stratagems?<BR/><BR/>B) So we reject this structuring of "Lessing's Ditch" (in 8). Right, of course, to do so. But how do we do so?<BR/><BR/>C) Do we try to immanentize the "upper story" within our personal or institutional experience of the here-and-now?<BR/><BR/>D) Do we try the move of Coleridge and the Transcendentalists, who sought configurations of the here-and-now such that in "co-inherence of subjective and objective" we realize the unity of upper/lower stories--roughly, moving the lower story into the upper?<BR/><BR/>E) Do we replicate the same upper/lower structure within whatever structure we prefer to it? "Truth is objective, rational, propositional; Sensations are subjective, irrational, irreducible." Then substitute reasons/tastes, data/interpretation, and whatever iteration of this structure survives the purge. Apollos is asserted in every Dionysian revel; every iconoclast is a dogmatist.<BR/><BR/>The question of "How Should We Then Live?" continues to reverberate in my ears. Epistemologically, I find myself moving away from attempting to remedy fact/value by insisting on objective/subjective--the move I'm finding a distressing number of wise evangelicals seem to be counselling ever more fervently and tragically.<BR/><BR/>I am working on the assumption that (a) these dichotomies are a real part of (my) experience, sharpened and developed by the already/not-yet of my faith; and (b) that according to Romans 1 there is no epistemic ground proof against aversion from God, that even for the believer "other foundation can no man lay"; and (c) that in the co-inherence of Christ historically crucified, buried, raised with the "for me" affirmed by the baptism and communion of the saints there is always and inexhaustibly both fact and meaning whose adjudication is eschatological, not logical (nor even analogical).pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.com