[KB] "Deacon"-structing Burke Part Whatever

[Stan Lindsay]

I don't want to be guilty of just picking out random phrases and critiquing them, but there is something inconsistent in claiming that sacred texts cannot be relied upon for truth, while making statements about "what we know about" anything.  Burke was critical of atheists, since it is not possible to prove that God does not exist. In the postmodern world, Burke prefers such terms as"perhaps."  In the final analysis, Aristotle's term "faith," which is the ultimate goal of rhetoric is what religions hold concerning their texts.  It is more than blind faith for those who closely scrutinize their sacred texts, as I argued in my last post.  Granted, there are plenty of religionists who hold to authoritarian interpretations of their scriptures, but certainly not everyone. The Society of Biblical Studies is comprised of academics who are active in the open scrutinizing of scripture.  This is not to say that any specific reading of a given text is just as valid as any other.  That would be a descension into relativism, which Burke correctly rejects, I think. I personally critique Burke's interpretation of scripture, Aristotle, etc.  That does not mean that I am right and Burke is wrong, but, based on my argumentation, I have "faith" that I'm right.  This is still a far cry from the authoritarian view of interpreting scriptures that I think Greg opposes.

Sent from my MOTOROLA ATRIX™ HD on AT&T

"Cerling, Lee" <cerling at marshall.usc.edu> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>KB mailing list
>KB at kbjournal.org
>http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kbjournal.org/pipermail/kb_kbjournal.org/attachments/20141106/fa801418/attachment.htm>