Subjectivity

[David Gould]

Let me clarify what Scripture teaches. The purpose of God’s revelation is not that we will have an infallible intellectual understanding either of God or of a moral code of law by which we can make perfect moral choices, but that we might know God (experientially, intellectually, and willingly.)

Know him in what sense? After all, through our very subjectivity and fallbility our knowledge of God will be imperfect at best.

And He has made from one *blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' (Acts 17:26-28)

The Christian assertion is certainly not that we need be, nor that we can be, “objective.” That’s a modernist notion, not a Christian one.

Fair enough.

Certainly—although some have a much larger dollop than others. The qualitative difference between individuals, though, is whether one is regenerate or unregenerate. Scripture teaches that “The fear of the Lord” is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom, and the difference between the moral ignorance of the regenerate and the moral ignorance of the unregenerate is that the former possesses “the fear of the Lord.” The moral ignorance of the unregenerate is willful—it’s a deliberate suppression of the truth of his or her own moral accountability before God and/or his or her moral failure before God. The regenerate person does not willfully suppress the knowledge of God, but because of the effects of sin, s/he still lacks some knowledge and wisdom in differing degrees. And because of the still indwelling sin, the regenerate does not always think and do in accordance with the will of God. His or her desire, though, is to do so.

But as you have pointed out, desire does not equal success in this regard. So when a regenerated Christian asserts that such and such is the will of God how can any other regenerated Christian know for sure that it is indeed the will of God? You might argue that God will guide them. But whatever guidance God gives them, unless he puppets them to the right answer they will still be only able to make a subjective, fallible evaluation of the guidance. Don't you think this is a bit of a problem for Christianity?

I used the word “necessarily,” though, to emphasize the fact that subjective, fallible knowledge is not, by definition, lack of knowledge, as skepticism claims.

I agree. It is just fallible. In other words, what we think we know - that such and such is indeed the will of God - may in fact be wrong.

Again, I agree—a subjective perspective is, by definition, the case with all people. No dispute here.

Cool.

I don’t want to dispense with it, I want to guard its meaning.

I meant if you want me to dispense with it.

The concept of beauty is, indeed, robbed of meaning if, by beauty, we’re simply referring to that which appeals to us, it lacks any intrinsic quality of beauty. The beauty of all created things, whether created directly by God or indirectly by one of His creatures, is a reflection of the character of God. You may recognize actual beauty in something that I don’t, while I may recognize it in something you don’t, and therefore, we regard beauty as subjective or “in the eye of the beholder.” Your sin nature and mine might cause either of us, though, to be attracted to the corruption of sin—something objectively ugly. But actual beauty, as well as its corruption, does exist, and we are capable of recognizing them, albeit “subjectively.”

If this analogy bears any resemblance to morality then I think you are in trouble. The fact that I can recognise the intrinsic beauty in one thing while you cannot, if applied to morality, suggests that there is no possible way for you and I to come to an agreement on what is and is not moral - in other words, neither of us can know if we are truly doing the will of God. We will not know if one of us is being mislead by our sin nature, either. So where does that leave us in our relationship with God? As far as I can tell, it leaves us in the position of being completely unable to know what he wants us to do.

How do you solve this problem?

No, this is not genuine moral discourse, although I grant that this is what moral relativists presume moral discourse is about. But true moral discourse is the attempt to align our understanding, and consequently, our actions, with truth.

As I have outlined above, how would you go about this? How would you go about finding what the will of God is?

For starters, your argument would have no foundation.

But I would not be making an argument in the sense you mean: 'This is objectively wrong. Therefore, we should not do it.' If we are dealing with preferences, what we need to do is change the preferences of others to match our own. Indeed, this is the only way change happens. The only way you can convince someone that they should change their behaviour is to make them no longer want to do it. You yourself talked about the regenerated Christian wanting to do the will of God.

Since, according to the Scriptures, the Triune God is the source of all goodness, all knowledge and all existence, one must either presuppose Him or presuppose His non-existence and the falseness of Scripture before even beginning to reason. Therefore, presupposing the inherent goodness of the Triune God as the starting place for all moral discourse is quite clear cut. That which glorifies God is good. That which would compete for His glory is evil. The ambiguity comes only from our lack of discernment which results from our fallen state.

Okay. So it is a foundational statement - a definitional one. God is defined as the source of goodness, and we cannot even examine that idea because we are fallen and have a lack of discernment. Hmmm. Why does this lack of discernment not cause you any worries regarding your interpretation of the scriptures, or the will of God?

But one cannot draw this conclusion unless starting with the presupposition of the non-existence of the Triune God.

If I pressupose the existence of the Triune God then morality is just as meaningless. As I have indicated to you above, we humans have no way of determining what morality is - what the will of God is. Even if God came down to Earth and spoke English to those of us who spoke English and said, 'I want you to do X, Y and Z,' we might still be in error in our interpretation of what he said, or even have misheard, being tainted by the fall. So morality is meaningless.

I would say that this switch will never be fully implemented into your activities because it’s counter to the God-given knowledge you have and, as hard as you try to suppress this knowledge, you won’t fully succeed.

Perhaps. But it is also possible that the switch will never be fully implemented because I have been socialised to operate in a certain way. But I will try to overcome that.

A little off the track, how do you know I have that God given knowledge? Is it possible that you have misinterpreted the Bible - given that you are fallible and fallen and thus lack discernment? It seems to me that you are trying to claim that humans have absolute knowledge of the truth but at the same time cannot have absolute knowledge of the truth. It is a little confusing, I must say.

When you conclude that people are not moral agents, though, you’re not only excusing them, but you’re also excusing yourself. By definition, you cannot hold yourself to any standard whatsoever, even one of your own making.

Of course. However, as a standard of my own making would be one that I chose as a preferred one it is hard to see why I would not hld myself to it.

Regardless of what you would or would not do, you’re giving yourself a blank check for whatever you have done and may yet do, whether it violates your own conscience or not. You might say that you don’t like killing people or you don’t like the idea of sleeping with your best friend’s wife or whatever, but if, in the heat of passion or whatever, you do what you “don’t like,” you’ve excused yourself from the need for repentance. An apology from you would be a hollow thing, indeed.

Yes, I have excused myself of the need for repentence. And everyone else. I am left with preferences for behaviour, which is all I ever had to begin with. And you are correct: an apology from me would be hollow, as I would only be making it out of preference - in other words, I would make it because I saw it as the norm in the situation and would not want to cause further suffering (because that is my preference).

But the ease or lack thereof with which a Christian extends true forgiveness (which is not at all the same as excusal, which is what you’re really talking about) is in direct proportion to the humility that comes from truly recognizing our own moral depravity and the price God paid for our forgiveness so that we could be reconciled to Him.

Fair enough. If more Christians did that then I would be happier, though. But maybe they have wrong ideas about what God's will is. Or maybe you do. Remind me how do we tell, again?

I also wouldn’t say that my ability to forgive is in any sense commensurate with my ability to intellectually grasp what true forgiveness is.

The intellectual understanding brings me great compassion for others, so my excusing others of their behaviour does not rest entirely on intellect.

 

[A. believer]

Know him in what sense? After all, through our very subjectivity and fallbility our knowledge of God will be imperfect at best.

Of course it will, just as is our knowledge of anyone with whom we have a relationship. This fact, though, doesn't preclude the genuineness of the relationship or our ability to know anything. A good deal of your confusion seems to be in regard to the concepts of knowledge and certainty, as if the two are synonymous.

But as you have pointed out, desire does not equal success in this regard. So when a regenerated Christian asserts that such and such is the will of God how can any other regenerated Christian know for sure that it is indeed the will of God? You might argue that God will guide them. But whatever guidance God gives them, unless he puppets them to the right answer they will still be only able to make a subjective, fallible evaluation of the guidance. Don't you think this is a bit of a problem for Christianity?

No, I don't.

I agree. It is just fallible. In other words, what we think we know - that such and such is indeed the will of God - may in fact be wrong.

Yes, we can be wrong. But, if we don't presuppose the Triune God as the ground and being of all existence and knowledge, the alternative is that reality is unintelligible. There is no other alternative. Although we cannot know anything with infallible certainty, we have an unimpeachable rationale for our confidence in the Triune God and in the trustworthiness of His revelation.

I meant if you want me to dispense with it.

Ah, yes.

If this analogy bears any resemblance to morality then I think you are in trouble. The fact that I can recognise the intrinsic beauty in one thing while you cannot, if applied to morality, suggests that there is no possible way for you and I to come to an agreement on what is and is not moral - in other words, neither of us can know if we are truly doing the will of God. We will not know if one of us is being mislead by our sin nature, either. So where does that leave us in our relationship with God? As far as I can tell, it leaves us in the position of being completely unable to know what he wants us to do.

How do you solve this problem?

You don't "solve" it in the sense of obtaining infallible certainty, if that's what you mean. But there are many means we can apply to deepen our confidence. Ultimately, though, we live by faith. Not only Christians, but atheists and everyone else as well. We all act according to what we are most confident is true. God has promised, though, to guide us if our faith is placed in Him rather than in anything else (which is idolatry.) Two faithful Christians can come to opposing conclusions on a given issue and at least one of them will be wrong, but genuine faith is, ultimately, what matters most. God's covenant children are expected to engage in vigorous debate over truth--this is not an inherent problem with Christianity. The manner in which we conduct ourselves in the midst of our disagreements is, in many ways, more important than whether we're right or wrong.


What we'd all love to hear upon meeting God face-to-face are the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Not "You got 100% on the question and answer test."

As I have outlined above, how would you go about this? How would you go about finding what the will of God is?

I could answer this question, but I don't think you're really looking for an answer. It's apparent that the question is designed to demonstrate that, whatever I suggest, it cannot provide infallible certainty, but I'm already saying that I don't dispute that.

But I would not be making an argument in the sense you mean: 'This is objectively wrong. Therefore, we should not do it.' If we are dealing with preferences, what we need to do is change the preferences of others to match our own. Indeed, this is the only way change happens. The only way you can convince someone that they should change their behaviour is to make them no longer want to do it. You yourself talked about the regenerated Christian wanting to do the will of God.

You're correct that the our choices are dictated by our will, and ultimately, there are only two states of the human will--either our will is for God or it's against Him. Either we acknowledge our dependence upon Him, or we're at enmity with God, insisting on our own autonomy. Although non-Christians are always at enmity with God, Christians are also guilty of trying to assert our own supposed autonomy sometimes, as well. That's the constant battle of the Christian faith.

Okay. So it is a foundational statement - a definitional one. God is defined as the source of goodness, and we cannot even examine that idea because we are fallen and have a lack of discernment. Hmmm. Why does this lack of discernment not cause you any worries regarding your interpretation of the scriptures, or the will of God?

It sometimes does. I’m not always confident in regard to the particulars of my every belief, and I’m not always confident about the choices I make in my everyday life because I recognize my fallibility and my capacity to be deceived by sin. But I am thoroughly confident in regard to the reality of the Triune God and the reliability and infallibility of Scripture in general because it’s through this lens that reality becomes intelligible. And I have a good deal of confidence in many of the particulars of my belief because I’ve become persuaded of these particulars through various good rationales. These rationales consist of things like the general consent of the church throughout the ages; etymological knowledge, cultural knowledge, logical deduction and induction based upon Scriptural assertions, etc. This doesn’t mean that I couldn’t be persuaded otherwise in regard to some of them if I were presented with better rationale by people with more wisdom and knowledge than myself.

If I pressupose the existence of the Triune God then morality is just as meaningless. As I have indicated to you above, we humans have no way of determining what morality is - what the will of God is. Even if God came down to Earth and spoke English to those of us who spoke English and said, 'I want you to do X, Y and Z,' we might still be in error in our interpretation of what he said, or even have misheard, being tainted by the fall. So morality is meaningless.

I wonder how you’d respond to that argument if your kids (if you have any) used it to excuse themselves for disregarding what you clearly communicated to them.

Perhaps. But it is also possible that the switch will never be fully implemented because I have been socialised to operate in a certain way. But I will try to overcome that.

You’ll fail. And I pray that God uses this failure to motivate you to reconsider your beliefs.

A little off the track, how do you know I have that God given knowledge? Is it possible that you have misinterpreted the Bible - given that you are fallible and fallen and thus lack discernment? It seems to me that you are trying to claim that humans have absolute knowledge of the truth but at the same time cannot have absolute knowledge of the truth. It is a little confusing, I must say.

I’m claiming that humans have sufficient knowledge of God, who is the absolute reality, and of His nature, to render us culpable for sin.

Of course. However, as a standard of my own making would be one that I chose as a preferred one it is hard to see why I would not hld myself to it.

I certainly understand what you’re saying. About twenty years ago, before my conversion, when I called myself an agnostic but was, functionally, an atheist, I remember writing a paper for a philosophy class in which I made that same point, and I wasn’t kidding, either. When I remember some of the things I justified and failed to feel remorse for—things that are, indeed, perfectly justifiable within the worldview I held (things, I expect, you wouldn’t find particularly shocking)—I’m astonished and eternally grateful to God for softening my heart of stone and granting me repentance. But still you might surprise yourself some time by failing to live up to even your own standards.

Yes, I have excused myself of the need for repentence. And everyone else. I am left with preferences for behaviour, which is all I ever had to begin with. And you are correct: an apology from me would be hollow, as I would only be making it out of preference - in other words, I would make it because I saw it as the norm in the situation and would not want to cause further suffering (because that is my preference).

But an apology from you wouldn’t alleviate any further suffering because of its emptiness, so you might as well not bother. It would be a lie. That might make someone feel better in the short run, but if the person at any point came to understand what you really believe, your lie would be exposed, and the hurt would be worse--adding insult to injury. That’s a kind of objective principle of reality, you know—that dishonesty is harmful rather than helpful.

Fair enough. If more Christians did that then I would be happier, though. But maybe they have wrong ideas about what God's will is. Or maybe you do. Remind me how do we tell, again?

Communion with God through prayer, unconditional obedience, the study of Scripture as well as a humble and teachable spirit in regard to the wisdom of God's covenant-keeping people. Again, though, none of these render us infallible, of course. But God doesn’t require infallibility—he requires faith which is characterized by trust and obedience—things that flow from our relationship with Him, from acknowledging our dependence upon Him.

The intellectual understanding brings me great compassion for others, so my excusing others of their behaviour does not rest entirely on intellect.

I commend your compassion, but you’ve taken a good thing—the lack of a judgmental spirit—and perverted it (something we sinners are very adept at doing). I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a God-given inclination to refrain from being judgmental. In fact, judging by what you’ve revealed about yourself by your discussions, many of your natural inclinations, both positive and negative, and concomitant with those inclinations, many of your ways of thinking, remind me of me.


I was hoping to respond to the other thread, but I’m in between papers I need to write for a class, and my sister is coming to visit in a couple of days as well, so I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance to do that.

 

[Randall McNally]

Yes, we can be wrong. But, if we don't presuppose the Triune God as the ground and being of all existence and knowledge, the alternative is that reality is unintelligible. There is no other alternative.

Oh, for an alternate reality in which Cornelius van Til was never born.

Are you a TAGist? I ask because TAGists are bound by a mysterious metaphysical urge to insert the TAG into every argument, relevant or not. Just wondering.

I'm not going to debate the TAG because, in my experience, TAGists are far too convinced of the deductive certainty of an argument that relies on the impossibility of all other explanations, of all things, to be able to consider objectively any potential flaws. It's as if they just assume van Til himself possesses some transcendental knowledge, therefore the TAG must be true.

But I said I wouldn't debate it.

Although we cannot know anything with infallible certainty, we have an unimpeachable rationale for our confidence in the Triune God and in the trustworthiness of His revelation.

That's curious. We can't "know anything with infallible certainty" but neither can we doubt that we know God and His revelation? How does that work?

Oh, and repeating "Triune" ad nauseam doesn't make it any more intelligible.

 

[A. believer]

Oh, for an alternate reality in which Cornelius van Til was never born.

Are you a TAGist? I ask because TAGists are bound by a mysterious metaphysical urge to insert the TAG into every argument, relevant or not. Just wondering.

I'm not going to debate the TAG because, in my experience, TAGists are far too convinced of the deductive certainty of an argument that relies on the impossibility of all other explanations, of all things, to be able to consider objectively any potential flaws. It's as if they just assume van Til himself possesses some transcendental knowledge, therefore the TAG must be true.

But I said I wouldn't debate it.

That's curious. We can't "know anything with infallible certainty" but neither can we doubt that we know God and His revelation? How does that work?

Oh, and repeating "Triune" ad nauseam doesn't make it any more intelligible.

Thanks for your interesting and oh so polite input. It's a shame you don't want to debate. I can tell from everything you've said both here and in other posts how cogently and respectfully you interact with the arguments of your opponents. And you have an enviable grasp of presuppositionalism as well.

 

[Randall McNally]

Thanks for your interesting and oh so polite input. It's a shame you don't want to debate. I can tell from everything you've said both here and in other posts how cogently and respectfully you interact with the arguments of your opponents.

I'm sorry, I can't help it. I hate the TAG as much as I am capable of hating an abstraction.

And you have an enviable grasp of presuppositionalism as well.

Okay, on this I'm willing to be set straight. You beg the TAG, which purportedly validates our knowledge, then you say we can't know anything with "infallible certainty," which appears to contravene the TAG. The TAG does not entail fallibilism, to the best of my knowledge. It doesn't seem like there would be much use for a deductive argument that doesn't deduce anything.