{"id":387,"date":"2008-07-02T15:25:03","date_gmt":"2008-07-02T15:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=387"},"modified":"2014-01-27T11:53:39","modified_gmt":"2014-01-27T16:53:39","slug":"dealing-with-apparent-contradictions-part-10-why-care-about-rational-reinterpretation-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/dealing-with-apparent-contradictions-part-10-why-care-about-rational-reinterpretation-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 – Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div>\n
Whew! That was close!
\n<\/small><\/em><\/div>\n

Many recent Christian philosophers have offered what I call Rational Reconstructions of apparently contradictory doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Though I’m presently exploring criticisms of such views, let me emphasize that I don’t see anything wrong with<\/strong> what they’re doing, and I think that people with philosophical skills who are Christians ought to<\/em> use them in any way which is helpful to the Christian community. At bare minimum, these folks are exploring possible views<\/strong>, possible ways to understand the Trinity (etc.). Getting clear about what the options are, and the costs and benefits of each, is an important kind of theoretical progress. Moreover, it shows intellectual integrity and courage, and concern for the truth.<\/p>\n

At the end of my last post<\/a> in the series, I noted that Rational Reconstructors often don’t believe their new version of the Doctrine<\/strong>. In any case, I’ve never seen one that insists that their version is the one which all Christians ought to believe. This latter isn’t surprising – we professors simply don’t have any authority to lay down a theory as required by any Christian community. But it is surprising that these folks are exercising some immense intellectual energy, and writing very involved and difficult pieces expounding views to which they do not commit? What is going on?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Short answer: apologetics. They’re deflecting bullets, as it were, with the theoretical equivalent of Wonder Woman’s super-duper bracelets.<\/strong> <\/strong>They have in mind an opponent of (small-c catholic, orthodox, or “historic”) Christianity who holds that the Doctrine in question is obviously contradictory, or even demonstrably contradictory.<\/p>\n

They’re arguing like this:<\/p>\n

We can’t rule out that the Doctrine ought to be understood as X.
\nX might be thought weird, but
\nX isn’t obviously contradictory, and
\nX isn’t demonstrably<\/em> contradictory. (i.e. There’s no argument that X is contradictory such that any sane adult human will regard it as obviously valid and sound.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice, they’re not telling you what the Doctrine means, or what the best way to interpret it is. In a sense, they’re not even, necessarily, revealing what they think this great and true Doctrine is. Rather, they’re showing that the traditional formulas<\/a> which are taken to express the doctrine can be<\/em> understood in at least one consistent way, which way they have carefully, with a Philosopher’s skill and precision, laid out, perhaps for the first time.<\/p>\n

There are a couple of unsatisfying things about this genre<\/strong> of writing.<\/p>\n

1. For one thing, they’re often mere defense<\/strong>. (Not always – sometimes<\/em> the author does hold forth his new-fangled theory as something we ought to believe.) They just don’t give the inquiring mind anywhere to rest. <\/strong><\/p>\n

2. The opponents are largely imaginary or uninteresting, or they wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be satisfied with the above style of argument.<\/strong> Permit me to belabor this point (which applies more to non-philosophical apologetics than to the work of philosophical theologians). <\/strong><\/p>\n