Home    Culture    Pub Theology Recap Feb 10

Pub Theology Recap Feb 10

Culture, Relationships, Theology Comments are closed

We had about a dozen people at Pub Theology last night over at Right Brain Brewery in the Warehouse district.

There’s nothing like coming in from the cold in Northern Michigan to a good brew and good conversation with friends and strangers!

On tap last night:

time

eternity

reason

ghosts

Here were the topics and quotes to get conversation rolling:

1. What about time?  Does eternity exist?

From Introducing Radical Orthodoxy by James K.A. Smith:
“Modernity eternalizes the present.  A modern ontology is characterized by a flatness and materialism that ultimately lead to nihilism – a loss of the real squandered into nothing.  When the world is so flattened that all we have is the immanent, the immanent implodes upon itself.”

“Only a participatory ontology – in which the immanent and material is suspended from the transcendent and immaterial – can grant the world meaning.”
2. Is reason reliable?
Immanuel Kant in the introduction to Critique of Pure Reason: “Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.”

More from Introducing RO: “The myth of secularity relies upon the modern dualism of faith and reason.”
and
“We must protest equally against assertions of ‘pure reason’ and ‘pure faith’ as against theology as an internal autistic idiolect, and against theology as an adaptation to unquestioned secular assumptions…  The apparently opposite poles are in secret collusion: the pursuit of pure faith is as much a modern quest as the pursuit of pure reason.”  We must seek a via media in which the theoretical foundations of secularity are dismantled – whence the spaces for public discourse will provide new opportunities for the expression of a properly theological account of reality

3.  What about ghosts?
——-
I don’t have time to give a full recap here, but there was some good debate about modernity/pre-modernity and conceptions of time.  About what does it mean to be fully present in the here and now, and does this present awareness become overbearing when approached from a materialist perspective?  There was no consensus on that, though one person, referencing Eckhart Tolle, noted that ‘all we really have is the present moment’.

Is reason reliable?  Again, some good discussion, and general agreement that it is.  No consensus on faith/reason as a false or appropriate division.

There were also some ghost stories shared.

Have a thought about the above topics? Post a comment below.

You may also Like

The Bible Project
The Bible Project

JERUSALEM (AP) — Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies — publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

Is Discrimination OK?

When is it legitimate to discriminate, if ever? Consider the following two issues, the first via the Grand Rapids Press on atheism, the second via the Traverse City Record-Eagle on homosexuality. Post your comments below.

To Explain God as Unexplainable

"Quia de deo scire non possumus quid sit, sed quid non sit, non possumus considerare de deo, quomodo sit sed quomodo non sit." This is St. Thomas Aquinas' introduction to this whole Summa Theologica: "Since we cannot know what God is, but only what God is not, we cannot consider how God is but only how He is not." At different points in my life, I've been pretty sure that we can know exactly who and what God is. We can define him quite precisely. We can come up with a list of attributes. We can name a bunch of names written in an old dusty language: "Jehovah Jirah," "Adonai," or "Yahweh." We have only a vague idea what those words mean, yet we feel quite confident using them. We pulled out the good book and felt we had not just a good handle, but a definite handle on who God is and what he is like. Yet the further I travel on the road of faith, the more I learn about the divine mysteries, the more I realize it is just that: mystery. Anthony de Mello recounts how the great Karl Rahner, in one of his last letters, wrote to a young German drug addict who had asked him for help. The addict had said, "You theologians talk about God, but how could this God be relevant in my life? How could this God get me off drugs?"

Religion May Not Survive the Internet, Then Again… It Might.

An article appeared several days ago on Salon.com entitled: Religion May Not Survive the Internet. I was curious about this, so I checked it out. Perhaps my favorite line was the following: "Tech-savvy mega-churches may have Twitter missionaries, and Calvinist cuties may post viral videos about how Jesus worship isn't a religion, it's a relationship, but that doesn't change the facts: the free flow of information is really, really bad for the product they are selling." I get it. There are many approaches to religious faith that seek to maintain a following through controlling what information is accessible (and acceptable) to its adherents. To me, such an approach to faith and to God is getting it backward, and perhaps its for the best if these narrow religious approaches do not survive the internet.

Pub Theology Recap March 10

The topics: 1. How can deprivation connect us to God? 2. Ignatius: “We must never seek to establish a rule so rigid as to leave no room for exception.” Never? 3. Does God force people to believe in him? Or does he let them choose? Discuss the differences. 4. “Trust in God could impose an additional burden...” Could it? How so?

2 Comments

  1. Bryan,
    If I lived in your neck of the woods, I’d surely be compelled to make my way to a Pub Theology evening. Thanks for your comment on my blog and the add to your blogroll–a bit astounding to me as I’m new at blogging and newly engaging all these thoughts and questions.

    I would have to assume that these quotes from Radical Orthodoxy mean that you’ve started the book. I’m curious to know what you make of it (especially as it may be some time before I tackle it myself). I’ll be checking back to see what more you write!

    Peace,
    Sarah

  2. Hi Sarah,
    Yes, I have cracked open the Radical Orthodoxy book from Smith. There’s some stuff I like, some of which is quoted above. However, there are some reservations I have about it all, which I noticed especially during the ‘Critiques of Radical Orthodoxy’ section, where various critics where quoted and I found myself agreeing with most of them.

    I’ll pursue it a little more – it certainly is interesting.

    Thanks for dropping by. Keep up the good work on your blog, and if you’re ever in TC, stop in on a Thursday night!
    Bryan

Comments are closed.

Close