The Forbin Project

DIY LPG 330CI SAID:

Hi Steve,

Hi,

Your name sounds like the designation of an AI program. I feel like Garry Kasparov in a match-up with Deep Blue.

First, thanks for engaging with Tuggy on this, it feels like a great opportunity to see where a discussion between 2 such Christians (a unitarian philosopher and a trinitarian theologian), takes us.

Unitarians aren’t Christians.

As for me, I don’t claim to be a theologian. I’m not that distinguished. I’m just standing in the breach until the reinforcements arrive.

Unfortunately, at times I'm a bit disappointed by the exchange. I'm really keen to read and understand what you have to say, but unfortunately certain things keep on getting in my way... and I wanted to share these with you as I feel sure I won't be alone, and hope to help you to address a wider readership (if that's an aim).

 

1) Ad hominem statements (or similar)

Suggesting that this or that specific argument is a "hermeneutical naïveté" for some good reason might be one thing, but applying that description to Tuggy himself is surely ad hominem.

His lack of hermeneutical sophistication figures in his unitarianism. So it’s germane to the issue at hand.

Likewise, dismissing him as a neotheist in a paragraph that has no obvious link to the point you claim to be addressing, again is ad hominem.

To the contrary, Tuggy has repeatedly suggested, in different ways and venues, that the unitarian reading is more natural or straightforward than the Trinitarian reading. That’s the same move neotheists make. And he’s a neotheist as well as a unitarian. So I’m just connecting the dots.

I'm sure you'll remember that some time back you wrote "Ad hominem invective, as a substitute for reasoned argument, is unacceptable", and, "Triablogue is no respecter of persons or parsons".

I reject your characterization, but even if it were true, I haven’t used that as a substitute for reasoned argument. When I say he’s hermeneutically naïve, I proceed to document my charge, and show why he’s mistaken.

2) Esoteric words & concepts

I begin to wonder who you're writing for. On the basis you're blogging rather than just emailing Tuggy I assume it's not just him, and I suppose that there must be a Trinitarian apologetics objective in view (is there?) However, as a well-educated Bible-believing Christian with a growing interest in theology (though it certainly wasn't my major), I confess to having struggled to follow this post. It's rather difficult to follow your flow when I have to reach for the dictionary / encyclopedia every other paragraph. It reads like you're not interested in 97% of Christians being able to follow you - which may be the case but would seem to be an unusual choice if your aim is indeed Trinitarian apologetics.

I’m debating a philosopher of religion. Hence, my replies are pitched at his level.

The debate would be more user-friendly if there were more focus on exegetical theology and less focus on philosophical theology. Unfortunately, Tuggy doesn’t like to do exegesis. He gestures at Scripture with some perfunctory appeals to Scripture, but he doesn’t buckle down and do the nitty-gritty work on the text.

One word in particular I'm struggling with is enantiomorphism. I struggle perhaps because I _have_ come across it before but in a different context - relating to crystals or molecules which are reflections of one another. In this case there are two crystals (or molecules) which happen to be symmetric. But there are still numerically two (or more) crystals/molecules. Perhaps you could expand this, as I can't seem to find an alternative definition.

i) You’re failing to distinguish between concrete examples and the abstract relations they exemplify. To take a comparison, consider (once again) the Mandelbrot set. It’s possible to display the Mandelbrot set on a computer screen. Indeed, that’s famously picturesque.

Yet that’s just a finite visual representation of the Mandelbrot set. The object itself is an abstract, actual infinite.

ii) Also keep in mind that when we look for analogies to illustrate the Trinity, we prefer analogies that illustrate both the one and the many. Not one rather than many, or many rather than one.

Also, saying that to "mirror" means to "contain the other (two) from a subtly different orientation"; and "you can reconstruct one from the other" (a) doesn't seem like what I understand from "mirror" or "symmetry", or indeed enantiomorphs; and (b) begins to sound like modalism. Perhaps I've misunderstood?

i) I don’t know what you understand (or not). But to take a crude example, from a negative image (in photography) you can reconstruct a positive image, can’t you? There’s a one-to-one correspondence between the negative and its counterpart.  

ii) How would it be modalistic if the mirror-image is not reducible to its counterpart? Modalism is reductionistic, right?

3) Orphan statements

In your first section you criticise open theists, and talk about narrative theology (which you do at least explain at some level), drop in the Joseph cycle (which you don't explain)…

Why do you think I ought to explain about the Joseph cycle? On a Christian blog I expect a certain level of Biblical literacy from my audience. Readers have responsibilities as well as writers.

…and seem generally to be doing some apologetics for divine foreknowledge.

No, I’m discussing neotheist hermeneutics, and relating that to unitarian hermeneutics. Both share the same naïveté.

Nor is it clear to me how it relates to the latter 3 quotes from Tuggy - which are (assuming he's bona fide) just an attempt clearly to understand your position.

Why assume what was said before must relate to what is said later on? Remember, I’m not doing this from scratch. This is not an essay. Rather, I’m responding to what someone else as said.

The common thread is not necessarily the internal flow of the argument, but tracking what the disputant said.

Likewise you seem to suggest you will address Tuggy's assumption on your position about the identity of the "Yahweh" in Isaiah - but then never refer to the passage.

i) That’s because I decide to discuss that in a separate post. It was getting late. See here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-was-isaiah-talking-about.html 

ii) Moreover, I didn’t refer to a specific passage since Tuggy didn’t bother to identify whatever passage he had in mind.

Once again, you seem to treat my post as if it’s supposed to be a stand-alone essay or self-contained encyclopedia entry, with seamless transitions from one topic to another.

Remember that this is part of an ongoing debate. That’s the context. I go where Tuggy goes. Real debates are often rather choppy. They lurch from one issue to another.

4) Unsupported statements & unshared axioms

For example you claim, unsupported (as if everybody will treat it as axiomatic), that "only God can represent himself". Clearly this is not shared as an axiom on all sides, and indeed I'd struggle to think of any biblical support for this position right now. On the contrary - Christ as the "image" of the Father you suggest means he's God by that same logic. Does that mean Adam and Eve are also both members of the Godhead? Either way, quoting unshared axioms as if they settle anything is unhelpful.

i) My post is just one installment of an ongoing debate. As a matter of fact I did support that statement in another post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/seeing-and-revealing.html

ii) Moreover, I’ve been blogging since 2004, so I don’t feel the need to reinvent the wheel every time I go over the same ground. For an even earlier post (prior to my debate with Tuggy) in which I provided more supporting material for my claims:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/revelation-of-father.html

Sometimes when I read a discussion, I feel that the more questions are asked the further the language and reasoning become abstracted, and the more difficult it is to actually address or even access the core issue. 

That’s because Tuggy would rather retreat into pure abstractions about the law of identity or identity of indiscernibles or whatever than come down to earth and exegete the text of Scripture.