Mobezom
Besides direct experience, what do we have?
By “direct experience,” are you referring specifically to the method of Empiricism for acquiring knowledge? I doubt that you are, because we also have Rationalism as an alternative, as well as a combination of these two modes of thinking which more or less amounts to the Scientific Method (or methods, I should say). I imagine that science is more of what you had in mind. Am I wrong?
But, in the case of these three modes of investigation, we aren’t specifically talking about Truth per say, but about the method and nature of “Knowledge,” which is related to truth, of course, but not identical to it. Even though truth is an epistemological entity, in some ways it is a term laced with more metaphysical overtones than is knowledge.
And then there is the epistemological (and psychological) problem of the Mind, to which both the concepts of Truth and Knowledge have to answer; and this is where philosophical deliberation really becomes knotty.
The interesting thing is, many people (~scientists) think we can ignore all this stuff and then go on believing that all of this has little implication for the studies (and classifications) we make of the world, because our work very often seems to “work.” But, if we are to look at either complex systems or simple systems, I’d suggest that we also have to seriously consider the irony that in looking at systems of the world, we are using systems (whether complex, complicated, or simple) to do our classifying of the world, a relation within our perceptual and cognitive processes that often is taken for granted and not completely accounted for in our individual worldviews or working methods.
(And I’d be tempted to say that it is difficult for any of us to fully account for all of the biological and psychological technicalities that could be accounted for, which makes our individual claims to any truth that much more tenuous…and this includes my own claims to the things I’m telling you right now, all of which can, of course, lead us down the rabbit hole for a visit to Wonderland!)
And you got that right … 2PhiloVoid could be wrong about all of his propositions which he just stated above. And for me, the irony of it all is really sweeping and awe-inspiring … ! It means that our trust in science needs to be taken with a grain of salt; it also means that our considerations about religion (or Christian faith), as much as they can be existentially, become even more complex.
Ah, so I'm going too quickly for now. Okay. (What kind of incongruities?)
Well, there’s a long laundry list of them, so in relation to all I’ve said above, let me just cut to the chase and say (claim) for now—there really isn’t any human point of view that is impervious to criticism or that is transcendent and with no accompanying limitations. So, if we want an axiom to haggle over philosophically, this is the one to chew on, because it means that on a phenomenological level, religion isn’t the only field that will give us fits when we attempt to acquire Truth and Knowledge. It also means that we will have a difficult time “building” an edifice of knowledge, and resorting to principles of Math won’t get us out of the quagmire either.
I'm not saying that "since there is a secular explanation, that explanation must be true." Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying that from my standpoint, the Bible doesn't prove anything; it could be true, or it might not. But you might already know that.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not quite sure if I get you, but you're saying that regardless of the infallibility of the Bible, its topic is important and relevant, yes? Good sell. It is something I'll look further into.
Yep … perhaps consider Hebrews 2:14 as a kind of catalyst for your further consideration; however, I’d hesitate to call it a starting point.
Ah, so looking into how truth can be determined through not-science? Sounds cool and confusing - the perfect mix to make me want to learn more!
Well, this venture I’m pointing you to will actually become an evaluation of “everything,” including the nature of science. So, yes, in some sense, you will have to be cognitively “outside” of science, even though the irony of it is that you’ll be using the very organ by which we … do science.
Patience is tough, but if there's no God, waiting doesn't matter, while if there is, God will probably do something, so it's worth a Pascalian shot.
Well, if you want to see my suggestion as a kind of prompting to take Pascal up on his Wager, you can do so, although I wouldn’t really say that what I’m suggesting you do here relies is a Pascalian approach. Nor is it a time of patience in waiting for God to “make a move.” What you’re really doing is trying to see if there is anything amiss, not only in your understanding of religious epistemology, but in every other cognitive process you may have, among which may be something that is holding you back from belief and faith.
But, in the end, you will only see what you feel you can see. And, if Jesus is real, and He is the Christ, then somewhere, possibly, in the mix, He will enter in and give you some additional insights that I can never give you. When, and where, and how—I don’t know.
I do like finding my own answers, and this is a quite intriguing topic, but do you think you could provide another relevant term or two to point me in the right direction?
And what other terms do you feel are missing at this point?
p.s. Please forgive me if I sound like I’m condescending. I don’t mean to be. I can tell you’re an intelligent chap; probably fairly educated, too.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
