1. 

   Sara
   March 27th, 2009 - 09:19

   I say no.

   Things that can be measured and/or proven don’t require faith.

   I’ve heard a similar concept used to try to explain why people believe in God. They want to believe that there is a God and so they interpret events through that filter to reinforce their preconceived notions. Which makes sense. (on paper….)

   But if you’re someone who believes, as I do, that “everything happens for a reason”, that idea requires that existence of some kind of grand scheme or higher order. I’ve heard it described as “intelligent design”. Eckhart Tolle described it in A New Earth as “incomprehensible order”- a design so complex, so intricate that the human mind just isn’t capable of understanding. But of course it’s human nature to want to find an explanation for everything and so we invent concepts like social constructionism to try to explain The Inexplicable. But as you yourself have said, “To declare that we “know” what is impossible to know is unreasonable and the ultimate ignorance.”

   While wanting something to be true certainly doesn’t make it true, it also doesn’t necessarily make it untrue either.
2. 

   Tom Leu
   March 27th, 2009 - 09:54

   Has social constructionism been invented to “explain the inexplicable,” or does it exist to counter those who claim to be able to explain the inexplicable through their “faith” arguments?

   By illuminating the absurdity of absolute certainty about any of this using the scientific method, social constructionism exists in rational response to, not instead of, the faith arguments.

   Rather than trying to explain the inexplicable – social constructionism objectively points out that any attempt [or claim] to explain the unexplainable is simply a subjective point-of-view.

   And this then, is arguably, the most objective viewpoint of all…
3. 

   Sara
   March 27th, 2009 - 14:09

   I didn’t mean to say that faith explains the inexplicable. I’m sorry if that’s how it came off. Rather, I think that faith simply acknowledges the inexplicable. I agree with what President Obama wrote in the Faith chapter of The Audacity of Hope: “Almost by definition, faith and reason operate in different domains and involve different paths to discerning truth. Reason- and science- involves the accumulation of knowledge based on realities that we can all apprehend. Religion, by contrast, is based on truths that are not provable through ordinary human understanding” Also, to paraphrase: Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts, and religious commitment doesn’t require the suspension of critical thinking.

   I guess what I’m trying to say, what’s true for me is that there are some things that just can’t be explained or understood. And if that’s true for you too, if we agree on the existence of the inexplicable, then I think the question becomes how we interpret what we can’t explain.

   Again, I’m going to quote Obama: “the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, understanding that a part of what we know to be true…. will be true for us alone.”

   It just seems to me that, in the face of what we can’t explain, why is it a bad thing to think about it and decide for ourselves what we think it means. And, in the absence of the ability to measure and prove/disprove something, what else do we have to go on except ourselves. Back in class, you always told us to trust our instincts and go with our gut. So why would we not do that when attempting to answer a question for which there will never be a definitive answer?
4. 

   Tom Leu
   March 27th, 2009 - 14:36

   We are agreeing more than we are not. We all SHOULD have the equal right to go with our gut and rely on our own [subjective] understanding of the inexplicable… whether we’re right or not.

   My point is simply that some people are very determined to impose their own (often unrecognized) subjectivity onto others and then claim it to be objective “truth.” This is simplistic and silly.

   To admit that WE ALL are social constructionists to some degree is the only honest truth. Alas, some refuse to see it that way. Some have such a strong need to be right and to make others wrong, that this blinds them from seeing what the post originally purported.

   “You can’t [truly] know it if you’re in it.” – Sydney Pollack
5. 

   Sara
   March 27th, 2009 - 20:03

   oh, snap…… guilty. lol

   I think I know what you’re getting at…

Leave a comment Cancel reply