Perspective #1:
What Christ and the scriptures say are true. All things are to be tested as true by comparing them with scripture. If anything contradicts scripture it is to be accounted as false. There is no negotiation, scripture is the truth by which all other truths are tested.
Perspective #2:
Christianity is true and yet the truth of it is what the "truth seeker" clings too. If on their quest for truth they find Christianity is false, it is to be accounted as false. However, while Christianity remains true to the truth seeker, he must use (what appear to be) outside philosophies as the testing of its truthfulness. These other philosophies will either sharpen or make dull one's belief in the truth of Christianity.
For as much as these two perspectives compliment each other, one cannot be both. Because perspective one insists on the truthfulness of Christianity and its validity concerning all things. Making the Bible the very source of our knowledge of truth; enabling us to decipher what is true and what is not.
On the other hand, you have a perspective which relies mostly on man's reason, however it can lead to faith. Just as Dante is led by Virgil up to Paradise. What this perspective is assuming is, truth is the thing worth searching for. If Christ is true, then we must pursue Him in order that we might discover truth. Part of discovering the truth however, is learning how to discover it.
This leads me to my question then; how do we discover truth? And can it be found in scripture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm thinking that through science and conscience is how we discover truth. God has instilled a conscience in every man to help guide him through the world morally, and scientific laws to guide him through the world physically.
When you put these two together, you have this general revelation about God - the fact that He exists.
Then you are in need of special revelation, one which I think must be found also through the glasses of science and conscience. Where certain religions may point out a better way to live life, appealing to your conscience, certain statements fall extremely short when it comes to reason.
Saying that, I think the truth is both objective and subjective, but not solely one or the other. It must have some empirical foundation, and then a logical explanation as to why faith is needed. Faith is not rational, but the need for it should be.
So, you'd come to the conclusion that Christ is true by studying Christ through this lense of science and conscience, whereas I think the other religions fall short under this sort of inspection.
I am not being as careful as I should here and I should look up material in books before writing this but here are some various thoughts to think about:
1. It seems like you are supposing that faith and reason must be opposed. I may be wrong about that but that is the sense I got. However, some have argued that really faith and reason always go together and there is no real separation of it. A particular philosopher has argued that the evolutionary naturalist has no reason to think that his cognitive faculties are properly aimed at arriving at truth. My reason leads seems to lead me to truth, but why should I trust my reasoning ability? If you are an evolutionary naturalist then there may not be a reason to. The Christian believes that God has designed human cognitive faculties such that they are aimed at arriving at truth to some degree of reliability. So when we reason, we exhibit some degree of faith when we choose to follow our reason. On the other hand, can you really express faith without reason? How would you even know what to believe in without applying some reason? You can't read and comprehend without using reason. You can't interpret any Scripture without reason.
2. Many people acknowledge the very important place of testimony in how we know things. So lets say that a famous mathematician tells me that the answer to a problem is such and such but I the answer sounds insane to me. I know the problem is way over my head and I know the problem is easy for the guy. I also am good friends with the guy and know he doesn't joke around and he doesn't lie. So I am asked to bet with another guy about what the answer is. My "reason" seems to tell me that my mathematician friend's answer is insane. So is it faith or reason when I follow my friend's answer? My "reason" tells me his answer itself is insane but my "reason" also tells me that my friend is giving me the right answer. Why do faith and reason have to be against one another?
3. A philosopher has also argued that it is proper for us to believe many beliefs without having an argument for those beliefs or having investigated them. One reason is that who has the time to investigate every belief we hold to that degree. Another reason is that we hold so many beliefs that we think we know and yet we don't have arguments for them. One example the guy uses is the example of other minds. Try giving a philosophical proof that other people have minds and aren't some cleverly constructed things to seem like they have minds. I believe the author shows that any such approach becomes analogous for traditional proofs for the existence of God (I may be wrong on that though).
4. Some have argued that we always have some first principle that has to be circular to some degree. If a person is an empiricist how will she support her empiricism? It seems she will have to use her empiricism to do so, but how is that valid unless one acknowledges empiricism? If one is a rationalist how are they going to support their rationalism unless they use their reason? But unless one acknowledges rationalism why should they consider the use of reason to support it as valid? So is it problematic that people we say Scripture is the test of all truth on the basis of Scripture?
I am not totally sure what I think about all of the above points and I have not stated them as carefully as I should have, but I also don't want to be typing here forever.
Post a Comment