Comments on: Picking up the Gauntlet part 2: Dialectic, not Metanarrative http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/10/picking-up-the-gauntlet-part-2-dialectic-not-metanarrative/ Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:48:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ngilmour http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/10/picking-up-the-gauntlet-part-2-dialectic-not-metanarrative/comment-page-1/#comment-5292 ngilmour Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:02:04 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=3176#comment-5292 That's how I read Tom Paine and other Enlightenment writers construing things, yes. And my insistence upon persistent particularity, strangely enough, has to do with a distaste for proselytizing--I'm not all that concerned with convincing my Deist friends that our differences are merely apparent, that we should start thinking of ourselves as subsets of a larger whole (the way that Paul does when he addresses Jews and Gentiles in Christ). As I noted in the post, I'm inclined (this is the Jonathan Edwards coming out) to think that conversion should be a spiritual rather than an educational moment. And as far as differences go, yes, I'm content to see analogies between traditions and keep them analogical rather than reverting to a positivist account of the "real" common denominator between traditions. That’s how I read Tom Paine and other Enlightenment writers construing things, yes. And my insistence upon persistent particularity, strangely enough, has to do with a distaste for proselytizing–I’m not all that concerned with convincing my Deist friends that our differences are merely apparent, that we should start thinking of ourselves as subsets of a larger whole (the way that Paul does when he addresses Jews and Gentiles in Christ). As I noted in the post, I’m inclined (this is the Jonathan Edwards coming out) to think that conversion should be a spiritual rather than an educational moment.

And as far as differences go, yes, I’m content to see analogies between traditions and keep them analogical rather than reverting to a positivist account of the “real” common denominator between traditions.

]]> By: Joe Futral http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/10/picking-up-the-gauntlet-part-2-dialectic-not-metanarrative/comment-page-1/#comment-5291 Joe Futral Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:54:33 +0000 http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/?p=3176#comment-5291 Let me see if I have this right. In Enlightenment thinking, pluralism is many religious expressions trying to get the one universal religious expression right and largely contending that the differences are merely cosmetic, even disposable if they cause contention. In your thinking, there is not a universal religion that all other religions aspire to or can be deduced from, but that they are directly trying to understand the relationship between the Divine/non-Divine (for the atheists) and humanity. The differences are important to the particular articulations and not only can be sustained, but should be sustained (any potential harmfulness not withstanding, i.e. no forceful mutilating of noncooperative people). You are essentially removing middle management, so to speak. But not in a way to a reductive understanding of God, but more in an inductive understanding of God, i.e. don't strip away the differences, but accumulate the differences. Find where the differences may be articulating similar ideas. Joe Let me see if I have this right.

In Enlightenment thinking, pluralism is many religious expressions trying to get the one universal religious expression right and largely contending that the differences are merely cosmetic, even disposable if they cause contention.

In your thinking, there is not a universal religion that all other religions aspire to or can be deduced from, but that they are directly trying to understand the relationship between the Divine/non-Divine (for the atheists) and humanity. The differences are important to the particular articulations and not only can be sustained, but should be sustained (any potential harmfulness not withstanding, i.e. no forceful mutilating of noncooperative people).

You are essentially removing middle management, so to speak. But not in a way to a reductive understanding of God, but more in an inductive understanding of God, i.e. don’t strip away the differences, but accumulate the differences. Find where the differences may be articulating similar ideas.

Joe

]]>