So we are investigating the distinction between ontology and reference with regards to that which is necessary. Examples that are contingent are helpful to help people understand the issues, but they may fall short in that they don't accurately represent the necessary on precisely the points that are at hand. That is, we can talk about something that exists, but the only way to discuss existence itself is by objectifying it so that we have an existential reference to it. On the one hand, it's merely semantic. But really, that's what the discussion is about. We may disagree on the ontological manifestation of the necessary, but we have to use the same referent no matter what name we use or the manner of quantification that we adopt.
The answer may be more practical than trying to bend people's heads around something they aren't ultimately going to "get". What is perhaps more important is to understand why people pick the answer they do. For example, someone may chose to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God because they desire to subvert the theology of one or the other into a secular worldview. That would be important to oppose by honoring the distinctives of both theological systems. On the other hand, someone may want to say such a thing because they observe that we are both monotheist. It may be helpful to concede the point in the course of using that as a backdrop and an occasion to verbalize the distinction between our monotheistic views. In both cases, we want to point out the differences. However, each case benefits from a different strategy.
So perhaps it's best that the question isn't settled perfectly, but that we get to talk about the God we truly worship.
So we are investigating the distinction between ontology and reference with regards to that which is necessary. Examples that are contingent are helpful to help people understand the issues, but they may fall short in that they don't accurately represent the necessary on precisely the points that are at hand. That is, we can talk about something that exists, but the only way to discuss existence itself is by objectifying it so that we have an existential reference to it. On the one hand, it's merely semantic. But really, that's what the discussion is about. We may disagree on the ontological manifestation of the necessary, but we have to use the same referent no matter what name we use or the manner of quantification that we adopt.
ReplyDeleteThe answer may be more practical than trying to bend people's heads around something they aren't ultimately going to "get". What is perhaps more important is to understand why people pick the answer they do. For example, someone may chose to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God because they desire to subvert the theology of one or the other into a secular worldview. That would be important to oppose by honoring the distinctives of both theological systems. On the other hand, someone may want to say such a thing because they observe that we are both monotheist. It may be helpful to concede the point in the course of using that as a backdrop and an occasion to verbalize the distinction between our monotheistic views. In both cases, we want to point out the differences. However, each case benefits from a different strategy.
So perhaps it's best that the question isn't settled perfectly, but that we get to talk about the God we truly worship.
Really excellent..."favorited" this one for future reference.
ReplyDelete