[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:28:46 -0400
John McCreery wrote:
"Could it be that what is missing here is a third, mediating
factor―religious institutions? ... The result is a situation in
which the lay believer, whose ideas may be very sketchy indeed, can turn to
a designated authority for answers to difficult questions and authorities
with middling knowledge can turn to higher authorities."
I agree with John. Knowledge requires some institutional context that
identifies experts. These experts are not the sole authority in these
matters but rather serve as a resource as well as vetting ground for what
will be taken as knowledge.
"Headcount is, then, important, but not directly in a straigtforward "the
more who believe the solider the belief" suggests. Headcount is an indirect
measure of the offerings and other resources that support the institutions
that enable the authorities to devote themselves to the deliberations that
solidify the content."
When I was suggesting that 'solid content' required a headcount at some
point, I was thinking of a headcount of experts. Expertise is distributed
through the body of experts since any one expert could be wrong on any
particular issue. One therefore finds the outcome of expertise by turning
to the body of experts, instead of to any particular expert. It is this
turning to the body of experts that involves a headcount and is crucial for
determining what is 'solid content'.
Two examples. Twice in the 20th century, in the 20's and 80's, there has
been a tremendous battle among fundamentalists for control of denominational
colleges. The battle was explicitly over what would count as the
fundamentals of the Christian faith. What was at stake was who would be
considered an expert of the faith and what would count as the 'solid
content' of the faith. The headcount that mattered was not one of adherents
but who taught were. The other example, and here R. Paul knows more than I,
happened in philosophy departments in the 80's and 90's over the question of
what was to be considered philosophy. Perhaps a defining moment was when
Derrida was invited to Oxford to, if I remember correctly, give a set of
lectures in philosophy. A number of N. American philosophers, with John
Searle leading the fight, responded that Derrida had no business giving the
lectures because he was not a philosopher. In this case, one finds a
conflict between putative experts over who is really an expert in philosophy
and therefore what is the 'solid content' of philosophy. Certainly
deconstructionism had gained quite a following but this was not the relevant
headcount. The headcount that mattered was that which occured within the
body of philosophy experts.
I don't see how there can be 'solid content' without a headcount of experts
and, following John, the institutions that locate expertise.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
