Comments on: The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/ the blog of Eric Austin Lee Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:07:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jeffrey biebighauser http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7650 jeffrey biebighauser Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:33:09 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7650 Sounds good. Thanks Eric for hosting this shindig. Sounds good.

Thanks Eric for hosting this shindig.

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7649 Eric Lee Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:23:51 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7649 Dave, the entire comment was prefaced with "Eric, ..." and continued to be addressed in the second person throughout. Sorry to misunderstand. Dave, the entire comment was prefaced with “Eric, …” and continued to be addressed in the second person throughout. Sorry to misunderstand.

]]> By: Dave Belcher http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7648 Dave Belcher Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:19 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7648 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 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

]]> By: Dave Belcher http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7647 Dave Belcher Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:13:07 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7647 Eric, I was responding to other comments in my reply. I have no reply to your other comments...this is just silly. Eric, I was responding to other comments in my reply. I have no reply to your other comments…this is just silly.

]]> By: jeffrey biebighauser http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7646 jeffrey biebighauser Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:07:02 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7646 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? 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?

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7639 Eric Lee Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:31:41 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7639 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 <i><b>seriously</b></i> don't have time to get caught up in that so I was and still am trying to keep my comments to a minimum. 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.

]]> By: Dave Belcher http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7637 Dave Belcher Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:25:12 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7637 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 <i>theological trajectory</i> within <i>RO</i> (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 <i>theological</i> 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 <i>AAR</i> with this conference, that was not at all my intention (which is why that post was all about the...AAR). 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).

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7614 Eric Lee Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:18:34 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7614 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! 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!

]]> By: Andy http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7612 Andy Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:47:54 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7612 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 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

]]> By: Nate Kerr http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7605 Nate Kerr Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:45:33 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7605 Er, "thesis" -- or whatever we're calling that "master's" thing in the states these days. Er, “thesis” — or whatever we’re calling that “master’s” thing in the states these days.

]]> By: Nate Kerr http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7604 Nate Kerr Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:44:20 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7604 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 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

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7603 Eric Lee Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:31:35 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7603 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) 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)

]]> By: Thomas Bridges http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7602 Thomas Bridges Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:22:12 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7602 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. 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.

]]> By: Alex http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7600 Alex Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:21:26 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7600 No Ratzinger as special guest, no paper from me. No Ratzinger as special guest, no paper from me.

]]> By: Nate Kerr http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7595 Nate Kerr Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:30:38 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7595 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.) 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.)

]]> By: Anthony Paul Smith http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7589 Anthony Paul Smith Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:57:28 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7589 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7588 Eric Lee Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:18:44 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7588 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 <em>me</em> 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 <em>my</em> position in that. 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.

]]> By: Anthony Paul Smith http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7587 Anthony Paul Smith Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:00:04 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7587 '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. ‘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.

]]> By: Eric Lee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7586 Eric Lee Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:47:59 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7586 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. 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.

]]> By: Adam Kotsko http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7585 Adam Kotsko Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:05:01 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2008/03/20/the-grandeur-of-reason-religion-tradition-and-universalism/#comment-7585 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"? 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”?

]]>