I haven't blogged anything since Monday and that was just a placeholder about the search. The reason is that all this week I have been wrestling with the issue of knowing: can we know for sure what is truth? This may seem like a very basic question to a Christian whose beliefs are based on knowledge but I have run across a philosophy that states the following:
a) for the concept of truth to be authentic objective truth it must be objectively known b) an observer is inherently and immutably subjective and therefore, can’t objectively know the truth (for a variety of reasons) therefore, c) there is no truth. While that philosophy may sound like a plausible and rational argument it has a flaw:
a) an observer is inherently and immutably subjective and therefore, can’t objectively know the truth with certainty. b) objective truth, whether objectively known it or not, exists. Therefore, c) it is irrelevant that the objective truth must be objectively known for an observer to knowingly and knowledgeably coexist (interact, participate, benefit...) with the truth.
Epistemological certainty, while interesting to talk about, is a) immutably a subjective concept in the first place, primarily because it is a product of linear or two-dimensional thinking (meaning, our belief that certainty is the inverse of uncertainty belies our limited understanding of the matter to begin with), and more importantly, b) completely unnecessary for us to participate meaningfully with truth itself. I believe the belief of objective truth is necessary but that is not to say that I am certain. The opposite of uncertainty (or, doubt) is not certainty. The three things that will survive from this world into the next are “faith, hope and love”, not epistemological certainty, and this is, I believe, for a very sound and specific reason: Certainty is not a phenomenological incarnation, whereas faith is.
The Bible affirms that we can know truth (see John 8:32, 1 Ti. 4:3, 1 Jn. 2:20-21) but only through faith.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb 11:1-3, 6
The Bible in that passage points out that for a knowledge of God there must be a faith that He (God) is. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Epistemological certainty then is contrary to the principles of the Bible. We cannot KNOW that God is; we have to believe that one faith. "No man hath seen God at any time..." 1John 4:12 Christianity is at its core a relationship with someone we can't see. That is why we must base our beliefs on faith. For faith that is seen is not faith.
God is the ultimate truth. And since we are subjective beings we cannot comprehend or grasp the fullness of our objective God. For if God is God and we are not God then how can we comprehend God? We cannot know that truth is truth except by faith.
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Ex 33:20
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1Co 13:12
We know only through faith now. But "...when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1John 3:2 "As He is" - without being limited to our view through faith we shall know God as He is. Does this verse and 1Co 13:12 mean that after the second coming we will know God objectively? I don't know...
We all have faith in something: A child has faith in its parents before it has the ability to test that truth empirically. Even adults attribute the basis for some of their knowledge to so called "authorities" in a given field of study. This is true because one simply does not have the time or resources to evaluate all of his/her knowledge empirically and exhaustively.
Let me make something clear about our beliefs being based on faith: It is not faith without evidence. "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ..." 2Pe 1:16 There is power in Christ and we should bear evidence to that in our lives. When 3000 were baptized at Pentecost they their faith had the evidence of changed men standing before them. But they still believed through faith.
This is a post in progress as I need to come to more solid views on this. But I needed to post something otherwise I would go crazy. ;)
God Bless!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A very intresting read, Matthew! I enjoyed reading it, though I didn't understand all of it.
The line of philosophical reasoning I ascribe to is called "critical realism." This is a philosophy a little book by Paul Heibert (he passed away last Friday)caled "Missiological Implecations of Epistemological Shifts."
The theory states that: a)objective truth exists and b)I am a subjective being.
This combination leads two places: a) I can know and reason and learn objective truth and b) I may be wrong.
Along with upholding faith, the Bible also states, "come let us reason, says the Lord." God created reason and he clearly intends for us to use it. If the only real knowing comes strictly through faith, then all truth will be forever subjective, and i don't believe that it is. Faith and Reason work together, informing each other.
So maybe I've missed the point. Anyway, see you Sunday. Happy Sabbath!
"...If the only real knowing comes strictly through faith, then all truth will be forever subjective, and i don't believe that it is"
Doesn't, though, the fact that you believe us to be subjective beings mean that the truth that we know is subjective?
I am really getting more and more uncomfortable with the idea that truth is only what you make of it through your faith. While I still stand by my initial idea that the truth we cannot know (at least in entirety) is God, I feel that I went too far in making truth a subjective, "God is who you think He is" type of truth.
God does not change. What you think of Him does not affect what He is.
I am still working on this one.
I feel that you and I are saying the same thing. There is Truth with a capitol "T." Begining with God, his government, his actions... truth truth.
What I am uncomfortable saying is that I can know absolutly what that truth is.
Heibert uses the illustration of a baseball game.
The realist says that there is a pitch, and I call it perfectly everytime. I see it and if it is s strike, I call it a strike, if it is a ball, i call it a ball.
The relatavist says something like "we cannot really know what a pitch looks like, therefore, i call it depending on what i feel like" (I forget exactly how this one goes).
The critical realist says, "There is a game called baseball and there is a pitch. And the pitch is either a ball or a strike. But because of my poor eyesight or the wind that watered my eyes, or the position I'm in, I might make a mistake. But I still make the call. When they review the game after it is over, the computer will be able to analize how well I did."
Truth is really real, but I am human and therefore, suseptable to making mistakes.
Post a Comment