The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism
This is the upcoming Centre of Theology and Philosophy conference called The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism. I’ve put in a lot of work into making this conference page so let me know what you think! (special nod to Mootools for creating such a nice javascript framework!)
Also, if you’re interested in attending, we are now accepting reservations for the conference as well as paper abstracts for panels. All the information you need is on the site.
Nice website, though I can’t tell if the booking form allows you to uncheck kids or I would be charged for them.
It’s a little silly, and annoyingly common lately, to posit the dichotomy between Islam and “the West”. The notion that Islam isn’t part of the Western tradition is plain wrong. Muslim Iberia was even part of the development of the West during the part of the Middle Ages the RO crowed likes! One could even suggest that the development of reason during the Early and High Middle Ages is largely dependent on Islam. I don’t expect John or Conor to agree with me on this, but I’m increasingly concerned by some of things said about Islam as well as the general approach. It seems that in an increasing attempt to distance themselves from even the good bits of liberalism they are endorsing a Clash of Civilizations thesis that is highly suspect.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Upon closer inspection I figured out the kids thing. It’s clear enough, just missed it the first time.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Anthony, thanks for the feedback. I’ve changed the way the stuff with kids displays so hopefully it is a bit more intuitive. Even though it sounds like you figured it out, the very fact that it didn’t make sense at first is actually something I need to hear.
ericaustinlee said this on March 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Yeah, that is a lot more intuitive.
Nothing on the more substantive comment?
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 20th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think I agree from what I know about this stuff. On the CFP section we actually have “Islam and Christianity” so I wonder if that is what they meant.
“One could even suggest that the development of reason during the Early and High Middle Ages is largely dependent on Islam.”
David Burrell for sure agrees with this, pointing out that Thomas Aquinas is highly dependent on Avicenna (Islam) and Maimonedes (Jewish, sp?) in his Faith and Freedom book.
ericaustinlee said this on March 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“On the CFP section we actually have “Islam and Christianity†so I wonder if that is what they meant.”
EEE… I don’t know about that. I would ask them their views about what Rowan William’s recently said if you want insight into this. Or, Islam in general. It seems to me these things are carefully crafted and they know what they are doing. And what I’m saying goes beyond Burrell’s very local thesis. It isn’t by mistake that Muhammad is part of the sculpture/mural in the Supreme Court building of great law makers.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Well, if they agree with what Blond and Pabst said in the IHT concerning Williams’ speech, then I know what their views are (and I think I would agree).
But at the same time, for however much overlap in the development of reason that we can be generous with, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to suppose that there isn’t some sort of ‘clash’ despite various thinkers’ best efforts to work together? It seems to dismiss a bunch of glaring examples of violence on both sides. Of course, the details for the different instances vary on a case-by-case basis, but it’s like a big elephant in the room.
ericaustinlee said this on March 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I don’t think Adrian appreciates how much of this “controversy” and “confusion” was caused by the media before the speech even took place, as shown here. I also can’t agree with much of that article. They seemed to have not checked with Williams’ speech before writing it, instead going off of what they heard in the media. Rowan’s point was about Islamic law, yes, but most of his comments had to do with the fact that there already exist, within the UK, recourse to religious law. It was a rather mild speech that did not suggest Britain become a Muslim country or that there exist two sets of laws for each. It is radically unclear to me what it would mean for religious pluralism to be safeguarded under Christianity, considering Adrian, et.al., have a problem with the way religious pluralism is safeguarded under Islamic law. It’s also unclear to me why “only Christianity” can do anything or that religion is what integrates a people. Yes, we all know the Enlightenment was at best a mixed bag, but you can’t just pretend it didn’t happen. Religion quite clearly does not unite people as evidenced by the strong reactions around these parts to the statement of their own Archbishop (largely because no one seems to have what it takes to just convert to the Roman church)! And, it is extremely dangerous to make these assertions if you hold to anything like a real Christianity that exceeds Christiandom.
Anyway, you miss my point re: the clash bit. Of course there is some kind of violence, but to phrase it in terms of Islam and the West is to completely misunderstand the situation and thus to create bizarre appeals to a new situation that has no bearing in the present reality (like suggesting that American style secularism is the answer). Was the Paris banlieues riots a clash between Islam and the West? These were French citizens or immigrants from ex-colonial lands. There are lots of Muslims in Nottingham that come from Eastern Europe, are we not counting them as in the West (repeating an old mistake)? This “clash” is just one symptom of a larger Global civil war and has more to do with a clash between Western European and North American powers vs. a small minority of largely Wahhabist Muslims from Saudi Arabi. The US/UK illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has added slightly to those numbers, but it is difficult to say if such passions will continue after a US pull out, though it would be foolish to deny that it won’t have long term effects that may include widening the Wahhabist cause. It would also be foolish to pretend that the insurgency in Iraq is an example of Islam clashing with the West, or vice versa. It’s clearly an example of an occupied people fighting their occupiers more than anything else. In terms of conservative Islam, not unlike the Religious Right in the States, they appear content to either shield their families from wider secular society or work through already existing conditions.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 21st, 2008 at 1:15 am
I dig the site and use of mootools - but you should really have the links point to the HTML page directly, if JS is turned off, you can’t use it at all!
keif said this on March 21st, 2008 at 6:18 am
It really sounds like you should take this up with Conor and the crew yourself, seeing that you study with them. Not entirely sure why you want to take all this stuff out on me; there are better venues to air these concerns out. I’m a bit out of my league here, honestly, and must get back to writing my thesis. But thanks for taking the time to comment.(by the way your link didn’t go anywhere)
ericaustinlee said this on March 21st, 2008 at 7:27 am
So, do you actually know who the guests of honour are…those “TBA”? c’mon…you can tell. :)
Dave Belcher said this on March 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I’m not taking anything out on you. Figured if it is a public conference it can be talked about publicly. It’s conversation, didn’t mean to bother you.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/13/archbishop-rowan-firestorm-was-started-by-the-bbc/
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
That last comment is actually more harsh than I meant. Honestly, thought people would be up for a conversation, wasn’t trying to take anything out on you. I have talked with everyone here about it, it has been a pretty intense debate, but I figure if you’re coming here and considering that you work with Conor more than most of us you were part of that everyone else.
The last link is to the article. I must have closed the HTML tag incorrectly.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Wow looks like an awesome conference!
However, if one was going to be in Rome, how could they bring themselves to sit in stuffy conference rooms all day?? I at least hope there’ll be plentiful wine. ;-)
Lee said this on March 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Anthony, I mentioned that I’m at my limit on this. I really don’t know what else to say. I’ve also had a horribly shitty day for other reasons I won’t get into, sorry. I’d love to provide more conversation for you on this issue but at this point you’d be sadly disappointed because I’m a dry well. I’m not going to pretend like I know stuff that I don’t and then you’d just get really frustrated with me. You clearly know what you’re talking about with this stuff. Regarding Williams’ speech though, I read it a week or two after it went down and probably a dozen commentaries, including the link you just provided (I think Alex posted it somewhere). Hopefully I’ll be a better conversation partner online or in person someday but I’ve had a lot of catching up to do not having any theological, philosophical, or political interest or desire as an undergrad. Computer Science FTW, back then. Although I took the time to write this comment, it’s hard to express how much time I don’t have this weekend to hash this out as, I’m sure you know when you have a thesis/dissertation to write, people also think you have all the time in the world to do other stuff, which I have to attend to. But anyway, thanks (seriously) for including me in the ‘everyone else’ at Nottingham even though I’m not officially there yet.
Lee, oh, knowing this crowd, people will surely be getting out during the day and at night as time allows! In fact on Wednesday, there is a break to take a walk over to the Vatican, I think. Although, with all my involvement with many of the technical aspects of the conference I have no idea if I’ll be able to go at that time because my wife and I may be making a move somewhere at that time for school, so the timing is not good.
Dave, I may know, but I can’t tell, sorry!
Keif, that is a very good suggestion regarding making separate pages and I thought about it myself. I may do that soon as time allows after Easter. For now I’m just hoping that most people have javascript turned on, which is probably the case 99.9% of the time. It works in IE 6/7/8beta, Firefox, and Safari, so hopefully most of those cross-browser issues are covered for now.
ericaustinlee said this on March 21st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Eric,
No one will know if you accidentally slipped a note into my email inbox! later.
Dave Belcher said this on March 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 am
Eric,
are you being a tease, or is there actually a ‘guest of honor’? I figured they just put that to account for people they are still waiting to hear back from. I know we gave conor some random people he should invite, so hopefully they work out.
but if there is some secret special guest that the centre is hiding from us in the department, they have some explaining to do….
should be a fun conference though…and I can’t wait to see what Zizek’s paper title is.
michael o'neill said this on March 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Michael, I believe ‘guest’ is listed as plural, and no, it is not a tease! ;) Nor is it just a waiting-to-hear-back-from thing.
Any idea if you’ll be attending?
Dave, I’m curious: in light of all your open hostility toward the CoTP, why would you care? I mean, seriously? By the way, I do know who the guests are but won’t be telling sympathetic or not (nor have I already), just to keep it fair.
(Also, just to be clear, the guests are cool, but it’s not an enormous surprise [but a surprise nonetheless so I'm still hush hush], so keep your expectations lukewarm.)
ericaustinlee said this on March 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
‘but if there is some secret special guest that the centre is hiding from us in the department, they have some explaining to do….’
Apparently they have.
Unsurprising.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 am
I wasn’t going to say anything about this since I’ve already caused a bit of distress here, but it seems like it should be said. Dave’s open hostility, in so far as it represents a coherent, intellectual, and in this case, a theological hostility towards aspects of the Centre has to be countenanced and even encouraged if the Centre is to live up to its potential. The Centre is a strange thing, to be sure, but that strangeness can either be a source of strength or it can lead to the most virulent ghetto-thought. When one reads Candler and Cunningham’s introduction to the Belief and Metaphysics volume they seem to present a unified vision, but then the conference itself and, to a large extent, the collection of essays do not share that same unity. And I think this is a deliberate choice by Conor and Pete and one that should be encouraged. I mean, they’re papist scum, to be sure, but they are open to non-papist scum! It’s this sort of thing that needs to keep happening if the Centre is going to be a place that represents the varied interests of the people it draws support from.
Eric, I realize you are busy with your thesis, and good luck with that (I’m assuming Hegel and Kierkegaard), so if you want us to move off from your comments do let us know. None of this is directed at you so much as there just needed to be a defense of both the Centre’s potential for an open plurality of ends and as a site for true disagreement and development. After all, I’m sure that Agamben and others who will be participating do not share the same enthusiasm for the current Pope as those who have done most of the planning do. Perhaps these reservations, and the lack of a consensus regarding the project of Radical Orthodoxy itself, can be taken into consideration in future conferences rather than the manifesto like aspects of this CFP. After all, it is certainly not my task to re-Hellenize anything, and the majority of actual Roman Catholics in our department have some trepidation, to say the least, about the current Pope. But, as long as these disagreements can still be aired alongside militant CFP’s, as long as our Centre lacks a Magisterium or an Office of the Inquisition, then it will continue to be an exciting, vibrant, and intellectually intense place to be, if not always an easy one.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Let’s start guessing at who the guest could possibly be, at a conference a short distance from the Vatican, based on a quote from the pope… Does his last name begin with “R”?
Adam Kotsko said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Anthony, I agree with and recognize what you say (I know they are not totally into all the essays in their conference volumes but because of that spirit-to-be-encouraged, they do so still); I just wish Dave would sound a bit more like you!
And please, by all means, keep the conversations coming, I just don’t have much to offer at this point in light of needing to crank on my thesis.
Eric Lee said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
‘I just wish Dave would sound a bit more like you!’
You might not be saying that later. I once called theology “fan fiction” and there was a bit of yelling at a recent seminar with a typical RO adherent. I’m not under illusions that I’m “nice” about this stuff, anymore than Conor or John is (and being called a nihilist enough times starts to get under your skin). (Are you talking about what Dave has written on his blog?)
I mean, I’ll say it straight up, Conor and John need to involve the students at Nottingham more, stop being so uncritical about this Pope if they’re going to remain Anglicans, and start moving past polemic to actually engage with some of us who take them seriously but don’t agree if RO has a chance of lasting. I’d also like to see the Centre’s public face and writing, mostly the conference, reflect the varied positions in the department. So, I’m hopeful, but there is still lots of work to be done and part of that could just be a statement to the effect saying that aspects of the Centre have a certain mission (i.e. Catholic humanism) but that not everyone involved shares that. But, yeah, there is a lot of potential here underneath all the tension.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Well, no, I’m familiar enough with your disagreements with the usual people; I don’t need or want you to be ‘nice’ about anything. Yes, I am talking about what Dave wrote on his blog — all I’m saying is that it’d be rad if he admitted the nuance that you do. Despite your own disagreements and the difference in your approach, you’re at least more realistic and at least acknowledge that ‘bigger tent’ possibility.
But whatever, people don’t need to write anything that has to please me or anything, obviously. I understand I am in an unusual position because I do the web stuff for the CoTP and often know more than most about some of the proceedings. I just would rather people understood/respected my position in that.
Eric Lee said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Eric,
Yeah, that is fair, and I’m sure everyone appreciates all the hard, and often free, work you’ve put into the website and other activities. It is sometimes annoying though that people outside our department, students and profs, know more about what is planned than students and profs within the department. I mean, there is no reason those of us who are in Nottingham shouldn’t know who is being invited to our conference. It adds to some weird tensions in the department that don’t need to be there and often adds to a perception that it is an exclusive RO club. Sorry you’re kind of caught up in that.
Anthony Paul Smith said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Allow me to add something re. Anthony’s comment about the potential openness and true promise of the Centre. I have been involved with the Centre almost from the very beginning, and to the credit of Conor and Pete especially they have been intentional in engaging my positions and having them be part of the conversations and dialogue that the Centre is seeking to open up. This extends beyond mere invitations to conferences to an open willingness to publish materials that don’t toe the proverbial “line” when it comes to “Radical Orthodoxy.” I have nothing but gratitude for the way Conor and Pete have encouraged and supported my work.
At its best, the Centre is not about Radical Orthodoxy at all, though it is a main locus within which Radical Orthodoxy does and will continue to develop and grow. I have over and over again presented and published positions which are directly at odds with some of the tendencies manifest in this CFP — universality, the primacy of ontology, the reduction of the Christian “Logos” to a hellenized notion of “reason” — and yet I have not nor do I at this point expect to experience any censoring of my views on the Centre’s part, nor do I expect to experience any need to break off working with the Centre and its members.
I share much of Dave’s critique of this call for papers, especially as regards the theological impetus behind it. And yet, I have told Conor that I think this will be a very important conference, perhaps the most important that the Centre has yet held. And that is in part because I am confident enough in the people putting this conference together that I believe these kinds of critical conversations will be encouraged to go on as they need to in Rome. And because of that I believe that we can hope that both sides will be mutually transformed by them.
Nate
(I have posted this on Dave’s website as well.)
Nate Kerr said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
No Ratzinger as special guest, no paper from me.
Alex said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Thanks everyone who commented for an enjoyable Easter-evening read! I am so late to the conversation.
Re Avicenna the Islamic thinker: I have yet to read Burrell’s stuff on this, but Milbank and Pickstock narrate that Avicenna carried the Plotinian Neo-Platonism (which is “bad” to them), whereas others carried the Neo-Platonism of Proclus.It would be interesting to do a study of different traditions within Islam and their ontologies to see if it sheds any credit or blame for good/bad sects within Islam (this may sound dumb, but if there is any credibility to what RO is doing with ontologies it is only as silly as they are).
Godspeed with the thesis Eric.
Thomas Bridges said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Nate, thank you very much for your comment. That helps me to process this stuff in a really helpful way. (sorry I was offline a bit so it took a couple hours for me to approve the comment)
Eric Lee said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Eric:
I meant what I said. And one thing I have learned from Conor and Pete is that I can always trust them to mean what they say. If there is any hope for the future of theology, I convinced it requires at least that kind of trust. If the Centre can be a place within which that kind of trust can be nurtured across broundaries and amidst diversity, I will at least for that reason continue to have hope for and to participate in its work.
All the best as you finish the dissertation.
Nate
Nate Kerr said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Er, “thesis” — or whatever we’re calling that “master’s” thing in the states these days.
Nate Kerr said this on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Well, happy Easter everyone!
I rather think it would be a really dull world if people only delivered papers to calls that they totally agreed with. So I hope there won’t be a boycot because of some of the legitimate arguments posted here. Illegitimate arguments I’m not so worried about.
My first conference contribution was on Unreason in Theology in a conference on Reason in Theology.
Eric, you’ve done a sterling job with that website. Maybe some discussion of the conference could happen on the centre’s much neglected discussion forum?
Practical question: if I want to do a link to the site from my blog, am I allowed to use the piccy? And should I include some kind of acknowledgement if so?
Andy
Andy said this on March 24th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Andy, feel free to use the pic in your post (the one above is slightly smaller than the one on the site, but if you prefer, you can click on the one on the site to get the rather large version and you can resize as you see fit). I sure hope some papers are presented with disagreements, too. And thanks re: website!
Eric Lee said this on March 24th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Eric, if you can’t discern “nuance” in what I wrote, I would welcome you to read what I said more carefully. Not once did I declare an “open hostility” on “the CoTP”…this is just ridiculous and not at all forthcoming from what I wrote. I said that the latest theological trajectory within RO (which finds part of its expression in the Centre, though if you keep reading I also am clear that I don’t equate “Centre” with “RO”) needs to be “combatted,” and that this conference as a particular expression of RO is a theological trajectory that needs to be refuted “with full frontal artillery” (I imagine it is the metaphor you have taken as “open hostility”…my point was simply theological, though: the precis of the conference proposes something that is not only theologically illegitimate, but idolatrous, and idolatry must be refuted theologically)…and furthermore, if you really wanted me to place some nuance in what I wrote that you found lacking, why not actually make the comment on my blog rather than in a comment box over here? (this is why I am so late responding) And I never suggested that I was “boycotting” the conference…I in fact have planned and still plan to turn in a paper proposal by the deadline. This is just frustrating to me because I was making a theological point that has turned into some kind of ad hominem attack that just wasn’t there. If you were perchance conflating my later post about an alternative to the AAR with this conference, that was not at all my intention (which is why that post was all about the…AAR).
Dave Belcher said this on March 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Dave, your points are taken, but you keep reading everything like an attack, yourself. Nowhere did I talk about a ‘boycott’, nor did I do any conflating of your alternate AAR post with that one, nor am I equating what you wrote with ad hominems. You’re a bit too over-sensitive, making connections that just don’t exist. Honestly, your post and the comments section is a bit of a hornets nest and I seriously don’t have time to get caught up in that so I was and still am trying to keep my comments to a minimum.
Eric Lee said this on March 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Dave,
I wonder if you’d be willing (here or on your own site) to elaborate on the idolatry charge. Is this something particular to this CFP’s use of ‘hellenizing’ rhetoric, or inevitable in any discourse which claims some kind of privileged position to Greek (or otherwise non-Christian) philosophy?
jeffrey biebighauser said this on March 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Eric, I was responding to other comments in my reply. I have no reply to your other comments…this is just silly.
Dave Belcher said this on March 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Jeffrey,
I’d prefer an email conversation, if that’s okay with you…I have already opened up a “hornets nest” so, I would prefer not to do this publicly any longer. Thanks. j.david.belcher@gmail.com
Dave Belcher said this on March 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Dave, the entire comment was prefaced with “Eric, …” and continued to be addressed in the second person throughout. Sorry to misunderstand.
Eric Lee said this on March 25th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Sounds good.
Thanks Eric for hosting this shindig.
jeffrey biebighauser said this on March 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm