I’ve noticed this discussion about the state of Dr. Cargill’s soul at the blog of Dr. McGrath. Interestingly, it has delved into whether or not Cargill is a Christian. I would imagine it has started with Dr. West’s contributions to the idea that acceptable facts can only generate from acceptable quarters. For instance, it seems many would characterize Dr. West’s logic as one can only speak about Christianity if in fact that person is a Christian. Of course, you and I — and I suspect Dr. West would certainly agree — recognize that this logic breaks down when we consider just how many forms of Christianity are out there — and would have to decide who or what is a Christian, along with the fact that an “outsider status” does not limit expertise or the explanation of a valid opinion. This is, after all, what logic Creationists supposed against Scientists and real biblical Scholars.
But, as I have said in the past and will continue to say tomorrow, the genesis of the fact matters not the acceptability of the fact. I am not an atheist — however, I can comment on just how silly such a position issue, what with proving a negative and the what not. I am not a Muslim, but I can comment both on the beauty I find in Islamic theology and philosophy as well as the rather disgusting venues it expresses itself. I am not gay, but I can comment on their standing before the law. I am a Christian — a rather conservative one at that unlike the liberals such as Ken Ham and other fundamentalists. I would hope, however, that my conservative Christianity is not taken into account if I produce something factual. When I have made these mistakes, I have often found that I have missed keys that have kept the door locked. The question is not how I spend my Sunday mornings, or Friday evenings, but the state of my scholarship.
So, as I explore the discussion unfolding on the Matrix Blog — and I would encourage you to do so as well — I have to wonder who the hell cares what religion someone is if their statements are supported by the philosopher’s trinity — facts, logic, and reasoning? Further, the religion of the person, or the lack thereof, does not in anyway limit them from contributing to a discussion on said religion.
Finally let me reload this conversation: I am not a Palestinian, but I feel like I can contribute my voice in calling for justice for them in Israel. I can join with others — Christians, Muslims, and atheists — in doing the same thing. Equally so, I can learn from pro-Israel citizens something that may correct my blindspots. If all Truth is God’s Truth, then to restrict the quarters from which it comes is to deny to God the full avenue the divine discourse. We are not called in our scholarly gift to speak only to those who are like us, but to learn and to learn requires challenges to ourselves and our opinions until the facts emerge. If we do not do this, we are not scholars, but fundamentalists — whether liberal or conservative — and we have failed Academia. Let our books be burned, our pens dry up, and our minds vanish.
Also, James McGrath is bloody ‘ell deft when it comes to the supposed longer ending of Mark.
Also, revolutions. I tried to work it in, but couldn’t.
- The Intolerance Of Religious Pluralism (myprogresswithgod.wordpress.com)
- Why Religion Makes NO Sense To Me (new.exchristian.net)
- Christianity As State Religion Supported By One-Third Of Americans, Poll Finds (syndicatednewsservice.wordpress.com)
- Criticism of Islam Is Not ‘Islamophobia’ (patheos.com)
- Fulton J. Sheen: On Tolerance (percalamus.com)
- I Love Bob Cargill But He’s Just Missing the Point (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)