Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(122)
-
▼
July
(17)
- Tired Anti-TV Curmudgeon
- Thinking Straight About Tolerance
- Islam, Terror, and Logic (Rebecca Merrill Groothuis)
- Three Books That Influenced Me Most
- Why is this?
- Apologetics on the Tube: Exegesis of a Medium
- Epistemological epigrams
- Book Review of "Prophetic Untimeliness" by Os Guin...
- Curmudgeonly Guide to Cultural Awareness
- Blog names in flux
- Apologetics Against "The Da Vinci Code"
- Book Review: How Shall We Then Live?
- Images, Words, and Time
- Review of "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
- Christian Apologetics Manifesto: Seventeen Theses
- Television Termination at the Christian "Bookselle...
- Book Review of "On Bull****" by Harry Frankfurt
-
▼
July
(17)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher. My most recent of my twenty books is Beyond the Wager. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus.
8 comments:
Scholarship by its nature leads one to be double minded. Scholars have to doubt, it's part of a good scholary method.
Amen to Blamires' observation, a worthy lament. Woe to those who dare seek the company of those who are at once pious, intelligent, and humble. It is hard enough to be in one's own company with that as a criteria for fellowship...
Isn't it true that the more one learns the more they ought to be in awe of God- and also the more they realize their own finitude (and how much they don't know)?
This begs, for me the question- what is our attitude toward knowledge and how do we see that in relation to God and to ourselves. We ought therefore to hold, it seems, to all truth firmly with certitude and also with deep and sincere humility.
By that measurement I know and have known some that I think are in that category.
For some reason the book of Ecclesiastes always comes to my mind with matters of scholarship.
From the first chapter: "For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
From the last chapter: "And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh."
I agree with Metacrock, Scholars have to doubt, it's part of a good scholary method. No assumptions; everything has to be demonstrated to be true.
Expressed another way, scholars have to maintain a degree of emotional detachment from the subject they're investigating. And piety requires engagement, not detachment.
Somehow the great Reformers, like Martin Luther, pulled it off, though.
Q
I wonder how much temptation there is to idolatry of scholarship -- making the pursuit of something other than God the highest goal of life.
Carl may be on to something with regards to those eager for the spotlight...
How do our times and culter differ from those of Pascal? Do we expect more honor from scholars than we expect from lawyers and politicians? Are not scholars equally suceptible to the "sinful nature" that plagues us? Perhaps I should research the context of this quote to more fully appreciate Pascal's lament.
"Pious scholar rare." Why indeed?
1. True scholars are rare.
(2. Pundits are pseudo-scholars and abound in popular culture. They typically screen at each other on TV. This we can do without.)
3. Pious people are rare, especially those pious by biblical standards.
4. Popular culture rewards neither the scholars nor the pious. See Ken Myers, "All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes."
5. Scholars have a tendency to be intellectually proud, but need not be. Jesus was not; Paul was not.
6. Piety, in American religion, is usually equated with anti-intellectualism or even misology. See Mark Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" (Baker, 1994).
7. For Pascal, the order of "the heart" was broader than "the mind," although they are not utter opposites. The heart was the faculty by which one intuited certain basic beliefs (including religious beliefs). The mind trades more in discursive analysis, working with what is intuited rather than producing it. This is an oversimplification of Pascal's epistemology, of course. For more, see my "On Pascal."
Post a Comment