Heresy and Truth
Jan. 30th, 2004 08:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kerravonsenIt's almost ironical that one of the examples he gives of heresy -- Galileo -- is usually talked of in a context of conformity: he is the Martyr for Science, all hail to him, boo to the evil anti-scientific Church. At least this article points out, further on, that Copernicus, who did the heliocentric thing first, had no trouble at all with the Church -- he even dedicated his book to the pope.
In fact, if you examine reactions to the Galileo debate, just applying one of the criteria in the article might make you realize that there is a taboo that surrounds it. Why? Because heretical beliefs aren't things that are obviously untrue; they are things that might be true. Thus a flag that an opposed statement might be heresy is if the word used to label it isn't "untrue" or "mistaken", but some
negative word which completely sidesteps the truth or falsehood of the statement -- like "unamerican", "sexist", or "homophobic".
Or "anti-scientific". Thus the whole Galileo-martyr thing; the plain facts were that the Church was mistaken, it wasn't anti-science (indeed, it was its love of science that had made it embrace the terracentric view of the universe in the first place, since that was the prevailing scientific theory of the times) -- but (a) there was something which made it declare Galileo heretical when Copernicus wasn't, and (b) there is something in current culture which insists on using emotional terms about the Galileo mess rather than the more neutral terms such as "mistaken".
What it it?
The article goes on to say that things tend to be declared heretical by a group "poised halfway between weakness and power", a group which is "nervous". Which makes sense. If a group is weak, nobody would listen to them anyway. If a group is strong, they can afford to be generous to their opponents, since they aren't a threat. Which, going back to the example of Galileo, explains why Galileo didn't get away with expressing the theories of Copernicus when Copernicus did get away with it -- the Church at the time of Copernicus wasn't feeling threatened.
And it also explains why the Bush administration -- and Microsoft -- have been bandying about words such as "unamerican" about anti-war protestors and Open Source Software.
Now, some people might wonder why a Christian would be interested in heresies and open-mindedness, but those who do are falling under conformist thought and are hardly being open-minded themselves. It is only logical that I should not be afraid of the truth, because, after all, wasn't it Christ himself who said "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"? (John 8:32)
While the article does at one point, make an assertion about the correctness of some taboos, most of the time it is interested in simply detecting them, to enable one to examine them for oneself, instead of conforming to unthinking rejection. The assertion was that if you examine different cultures (both in time and space) and one culture thinks something is okay, and another is shocked by it, then the shocked one is probably wrong. This might be useful as a rule of thumb to determine the commonalities of humanity, but I don't think it's necessarily an acid test of truth or falsehood.
I think another reason why I'm not shocked at the thought of examining taboos in general is that I belong to a subculture which is less than mainstream -- at least if you were to believe the media, people like me don't exist. Yes, I am a product of my culture, but I'm partly not, too. There are many ways in which I'm an outsider, and therefore am inclined to view certain things with more detatchment. Even within the Christian church I'm not as culture-bound as many, since I've participated in a number of different denominations and thus different sub-cultures in the Church itself. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own blinkers -- I just haven't seen what they are yet.
One of the things the article points out is to be wary of labels -- they are a convenient way of sidestepping thought and debate. To quote Chesterton: "Most of the machinery of modern language is labour-saving machinery; and it saves mental labour very much more than it ought." I ran smack bang into this early on in my time with my current church: I made some remark in biblestudy, and my bible study leader (who happened to be the minister of the church) said "That's Arminianism," as if that was the end of the story. I didn't have a clue what he was talking about, of course. Let's just say that my time with this particular denomination has been a challenging exersize in thinking for myself, since this particular one seems to have more taboos than any other I've been with.
Being tossed into different cultures is a good way of being forced to think about one's own assumptions.
One thing one learns about taboos -- choose one's battles. It's fine to think heresy in ones own mind, but there's no point in arguing about it when the person you're arguing with is not going to listen. In that case, its only your own pride that's arguing. At best, its wiser to just say you don't agree, but refuse to be drawn.
Debating with open-minded people is a different matter. And someone can be open-minded on one subject and closed-minded on another.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 01:43 am (UTC)BTW, LOL at your icon!
I don't think He does, though.
On the other hand, one can start wondering things like What language is spoken in Heaven, and does it really matter anyway because everyone will understand everyone anyway...
Re:
Date: 2004-01-30 12:57 pm (UTC)The icon is a reference to Eddie Izzard, who took to using his James Mason voice in his standup pantomimes wherever he played the part of God.
It is, however, fascinating to think about what kind of language will be spoken in "the region...where all that is not music is silence." :)
Re: Language in Heaven
Date: 2004-01-30 01:36 pm (UTC)Elvish! (grin)
(sorry, it just popped into my head as being a very musical language...)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:58 pm (UTC)Copernicus dedicated his book to the pope precisely because he realised that it could get him into trouble. Galileo, as you point out, lived in a more dangerous time. The 14th Century is generally considered the Golden Age of heresy but none survived the century. The Reformation movement of the 16th Century shook the medieval church to its foundations and protestantism survives today. Had Copernicus lived a century earlier - one one later, he might have been in trouble.
I consider labels to be a useful tool. They do incorporate the philosophy that created them. Most political ones ("defeatist", "jacobite" etc) tend to have a short shelf life.
Anyone curious about what Arminianism is can look it up here. I am impressed by your bible study leader. I wish everyone who conducts such classes had to pass a exam on such matters.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 04:45 pm (UTC)Heresy in its narrowest sense means that. I'm not talking about it in its narrowest sense. And I guess I'm not quite talking about the Gospel Truth, but Truth in general. I mean, you can't deny that heliocentrism was consiered a heresy, and that it is something that is now seen to be true.
To elaborate on the matter of Truth... a pragmatic definition of truth is "a model which accurately reflects the real actual existing Universe". Scientific truth is pragmatic in that manner; it tests things against the material universe. Spiritual truth is harder to test, because the supernatual universe doesn't tend to stand still to be tested, generally because its made up of beings who get rather annoyed when you try to poke them. Yet, still, that doesn't mean it's completely untestable. What is the Biblical test of a prophet? The test is if what he says does come to pass, then he really is a prophet.
Though our model of the universe may change, the universe itself does not change. Truth is eternal. If something doesn't fit, it is our model which is at fault, not the universe.
Copernicus dedicated his book to the pope precisely because he realised that it could get him into trouble. Galileo, as you point out, lived in a more dangerous time. The 14th Century is generally considered the Golden Age of heresy but none survived the century. The Reformation movement of the 16th Century shook the medieval church to its foundations and protestantism survives today. Had Copernicus lived a century earlier - one one later, he might have been in trouble.
Which was precisely the point. We know now that the heliocentric idea is a better model of the material universe than the terracentric one was, yet it was a dangerous thought to think.
I consider labels to be a useful tool. They do incorporate the philosophy that created them. Most political ones ("defeatist", "jacobite" etc) tend to have a short shelf life.
Labels are a good servant but a poor master. When labels are used in a political manner, that is a problem. For example, the word "unscientific" can be used perfectly accurately to describe something -- but if it is then used as a pejorative, with intent to dismiss without thought, then it has become political and is a problem.
I am impressed by your bible study leader. I wish everyone who conducts such classes had to pass a exam on such matters.
It is generally a requirement of the older denominations that ministers must pass several exams on such matters. Though of course most bible study leaders aren't ministers. I actually respect our minister a great deal; he is very good at exegesis -- it's only on certain dogmas that we disagree.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-30 01:23 am (UTC)I don't follow you here. Heresy is an opinion or doctrine at variance with official dogma. Assuming there is some ultimate truth (without which dogma would be irrelevant), it is always possible for official dogma to be false and heresy to be truth.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 02:06 am (UTC)Mistral: I don't follow you here. Heresy is an opinion or doctrine at variance with official dogma. Assuming there is some ultimate truth (without which dogma would be irrelevant), it is always possible for official dogma to be false and heresy to be truth.
But perhaps he is not assuming that there is "some ultimate truth" -- if one is an atheist, one isn't going to be assuming that a religion can be true. From that point of view, a religion cannot have any kind of objective/absolute truth about it: it is a shared consensual hallucination of its followers, a psychological phenomenon only, and thus the only thing which can define a religion is its official dogma. Thus, by definition, heresy can't set you free.
Then again, it is a sad irony that many Christians believe in dogma rather than faith: that "knowing the right things" is the path to salvation, rather than trusting the right Person.
Not that we're supposed to be ignorant either. But if God can save us from our sins, then surely he can save us from our stupidity?
Re:
Date: 2004-01-30 02:16 am (UTC)Mmm... I think we're at cross purposes, here. If there is an absolute truth, then dogma can be wrong and heresy can set you free from wrong dogma. I was assuming the reverse would be self-evident: if, on the other hand, there is not absolute truth, then dogma is irrelevant and heresy can free you from false and irrelevant dogma. Which would seem to cover the field, unless Hawkeye is saying that heresy merely moves you from one false and irrelevant dogma to another.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-30 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 01:58 am (UTC)Let's just say that my time with this particular denomination has been a challenging exersize in thinking for myself, since this particular one seems to have more taboos than any other I've been with.
[snerk] If I'm recalling correctly which one that is, I'm not a bit surprised to hear that.
One thing one learns about taboos -- choose one's battles. It's fine to think heresy in ones own mind, but there's no point in arguing about it when the person you're arguing with is not going to listen. In that case, its only your own pride that's arguing. At best, its wiser to just say you don't agree, but refuse to be drawn.
It can be downright dangerous to speak one's mind when it differs from conventional thought. On the other hand, it can be dangerous to let the conventional thought prevail when it's wrong-headed and stupid (this is how we get abominations like the Patriot Act). Choosing which battles to fight can often be more difficult than fighting them. One thing I've been reminded of this week is that it's much easier to persuade people to adjust their position by a fraction of an inch than it is to get them to reverse it. I think that's the best way to attack entrenched conventional non-wisdom; and I think it should be done early and often. That was really my one disappointment with the article; people should be encouraged to speak their heresies and listen to the heresies of others, because as you point out, the truth has nothing to fear from dissension.