In this post I want to briefly describe a problem which has dogged modern theology (and philosophy) at least since the time of Descartes and Locke (in the process I will be attempting to explain some complex theory in a short space, something I will no doubt fail to do). OK, basically Descartes wanted to overcome scepticism by finding something which was utterly indubitable. He doubted everything that it was possible to doubt (which turned out to be pretty much everything). Indeed, the only thing he couldn’t doubt was that he was thinking, because if he thought that he wasn’t thinking then he was thinking about not thinking – hence he claimed ‘I think therefore I am’. From here he went on to try and prove the existence of God and the world.
Anyway, why is this important? For the simple reason that Descartes set in motion what is called the subject/object dichotomy. Basically Descartes started with the idea of the mind (subject) which then related to the world (object). The problem since then has always been ‘how does the subject (mind) reach out and make sense of the world (object)’. In religious terms the question is ‘How does the individual (subject) understand God (object)’? Two dominant responses to this question can be summed in the phrases ‘Christian realism’ and ‘Christian non-realism’. In the first the individual says ‘I can know God as an object and thus make objective claims about God’. In the second the individual says ‘I can never escape the confines of my subjectivity and thus can never make God into an object, thus I can never make objective claims about God’. It is the latter which generally seems the more rational and philosophically justifiable position and the former which generally seems closer to what faith is really about.
However, there is a way to get beyond this problem via what is called ‘phenomenology’. In phenomenology the subject/object dichotomy is rejected. It is said that before we ever get to scientifically or philosophically reflect on the idea of subject and object the subject is already in relationship with the object. In other words, everything is intersubjective. The moto of phenomenology is ‘consciousness is always consciousness of something’ i.e. we cannot be conscious of nothing, otherwise we would be unconscious. The result is that the believer can say ‘as a religious person I am already in relationship with something which I call God’. They neither have to say ‘I can make God into an object and thus make objective claims about God’ nor ‘God is a meaningless concept’. The believer can say ‘I am in a loving relationship with one who is utterly beyond my ability to objectify or grasp, but I am transformed through that relationship’. Thus phenomenological theology does not sit around and ask ‘what is God (as object) like’, but rather is interested in how our relationship with God transforms us into more loving and Christ-like individuals. Far from being really dodgy, these insights can be described as broadly Lutheran, with a twist of the mystics thrown in (I have always found Luther on the rocks a little too much).
Posted at 18:53 |
Link to this post
Comments:
Thanks for the question. It is one which brings us to the heart of apophatic (or mystical) theology (the term negative theology is problematic). It also goes to the heart of a debate that happened between Derrida and Marion (see God the Gift and Postmodernism for more details). My quick, and very inadequate response would be to use the analogy of a baby in their motherâs arms. The child experiences the love but cannot conceptualise it. It is the difference between I/it knowledge (knowing something as object) and I/Thou knowledge (knowing something as subject). I would also use the analogy of painting. I great artwork cannot be reduced to understanding because it saturates our understanding. Not to want to push my own book, but in it I go into this in more detail. Thanks again for your thoughts and the gracious way you put them.
Posted by: Pete
on 30/03/06 at 23:17
To pursue your analogy a bit further. The baby may not be able to conceptualise the Mother's love whilst it is still a baby, but as it grows and learns more about the nature of its Mother's love, as its Mother demonstrates her love to her child and as the child learns more about the nature of that love, then the child can begin to conceptualise the love in the framework that its Mother has provided for it.
Posted by: fun_da_MENTAL
on 03/04/06 at 23:23
That is a really interesting and thoughtful post. I am investigating the relationship between 'Realisms' and pastoral practice at the moment, particularly within the context of parochial ministry (where the one thing you can guarantee is that at a funeral everyone will have different understanding of faith). Very little has been done on Non-Realist Pastoral theology, but the phenomenological model you are toying with certainly holds out promise.
Posted by: Edward::Green
on 05/04/06 at 12:55
+ Post your comment
