Crowe discusses the cognitive operations and processes that Lonergan claims are universal to human nature. These universal cognitive operations and processes are involved in all forms of social construction of meaning discussed by Salzman and Lawler. As a result, there is an adequate epistemology involved in their account of the social construction of meaning. By contrast, the nine bishops seem to have an inadequate epistemology based on the view that Lonergan mocks as "taking a good look."
Once you shift your attention to focusing on universal cognitive operations and processes, as Lonergan and Crowe do, then it is not a big step to accommodate the constructivist approach with which Salzman and Lawler work.
Related Reading: For another noteworthy effort to work out an adequate epistemology that is nonskeptical and nonrelativist but constructivist, as Salzman and Lawler's epistemology is, I would recommend COGENT SCIENCE IN CONTEXT: THE SCIENCE WARS, ARGUMENTATION THEORY, AND HABERMAS (MIT Press, 2009) by William Rehg, S.J., who teaches philosophy at Saint Louis University. My 5,000-word review of Rehg's book has been published in the current issue of the online journal ON THE HORIZON.
In short, the nonskeptical and nonrelativist constructivist epistemology with which Salzman and Lawler work is adequate enough as it stands in their book. Moreover, there are further ways in which it could be strengthened, as Rehg shows. However, it appears that the nine bishops themselves have an inadequate epistemology, but they do not seem to recognize the inadequacy of their own apparent epistemology.
The Nine Bishops and the Eternal Logos
Next, we should consider the eternal Logos that the nine bishops mention in the above-quoted statement: "a created order that has come into being and is sustained in being by the eternal Logos" (page 11). Let us note that the nine bishops hold a creationist position that is rooted in scripture, as we will discuss momentarily. In the final analysis, I myself hold a creationist account, but not necessarily based on scripture, even though a creationist account happens to be compatible with scripture. However, when a creationist view is understood as coming ultimately from the eternal Logos (i.e., one aspect of the transcendent divine ground of being), this creationist view is not necessarily incompatible with the evolutionary account of the unfolding and development of the cosmos. Evolution accounts for process, but not for being. The branch of philosophy that studies being is known as metaphysics. But as is well known, certain philosophic traditions of thought have chucked aside metaphysics. And the Second Vatican Council chucked aside the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition of philosophy, including metaphysics, so that the Roman Catholic Church today has no one official philosophy. But if you ask me, the conceptual construct of the eternal Logos needs to be supported by a philosophy that includes a metaphysics, because a philosophy that excludes metaphysics does not provide any philosophic support for the conceptual construct of the eternal Logos.
The supposedly eternal Logos is a conceptual construct borrowed from ancient Greek and Roman stoic philosophy. Philo the Jew of Alexandria borrowed the conceptual construct of the Logos from ancient Greek and Roman stoic philosophy in his effort to reconcile ancient Hebrew thought with ancient Greek and Roman stoic thought. In turn, the anonymous author of the Gospel of John borrowed the conceptual construct of the Logos from Philo and elaborated it further in the prologue to the Gospel According to John. When the anonymous author constructed the prologue, he or she also had the first account of creation in the book of Genesis on his or her mind. In any event, the conceptual construct of the Logos means that inasmuch as human reason can discover intelligibility in nature, that intelligibility can be understood as coming from the Logos, which is one way of referring to the transcendent divine ground of being.
Regarding Paul the Apostle's indebtedness to ancient Greek and Roman stoic philosophy, see Troels Engberg-Pedersen's PAUL AND THE STOICS (Westminster John Knox Press, 2000).
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
