Introducing Chad from Middle Ground

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@swamidass

A successful synthesis is often a refinement of both sides, which in time might be come to be accepted by both sides as an improvement on the thesis and antithesis, even if there might have been debate initially. That is how the dialectic works. The synthesis ends up extinguishing the synthesis-thesis.

Yes, that’s exactly what I was saying. That’s the Hegelian Dialectic.

@swamidass

But I don’t think that what @chad is after here, nor is it the main value.

Hopefully he’ll chime in, because using the term “middle ground” seems to imply exactly that.

@swamidass

Even if a particular synthesis attempt is not successful, the dialogue about it is intrinsically valuable, and end in itself.

So is he attempting a synthesis of views, or not? If one of the opposing sides is correct, then no synthesis is needed. So by attempting a synthesis, we must be saying that neither side is sufficient at present.

@swamidass

Even if we cannot agree with each other, the ability to engage with one another is a relational synthesis that’s most people quickly see is better then the quagmire of opposing sides talking past each other, as so often happens in the creation wars.

I certainly agree with this. I don’t think we should talk past each other. However, I don’t see any need for synthesis whatsoever. The way to overcome theological disagreement is not to compromise (as is so often done in politics), but to go back to the source. What does the Bible say?