Glenn,
I'll second Tom's points, which fit Augustine's claim that all knowledge
is based on faith. It is clear that all science requires acceptance of
items that are not demonstrable scientifically. These include:
1. There is a world out there. It is not a hallucination.
2. The world is understandable. That is, the structure of the world
matches our intellectual capabilities.
3. Our sensory reports are veridical. Yes, there are optical illusions,
but the only way to detect and correct an illusion is to look again,
perhaps with a technique to avoid the generator of the illusion. Also,
our senses are limited, so we need instruments to extend their range.
But, in the end, one must look or listen.
There are other more general items of faith on which I base my life:
that there are people out there with the same basic experiences as mine;
that the world is as it appears, not created five minutes (or five
seconds) ago; that there are moral standards. These are so commonplace
that we ignore them unless some pesky philosopher brings them up to make
a point.
Finally, may I remind you of Hebrews 11:6. Coming to God requires faith,
not knowledge. There is no foolproof proof of God's existence or of his
character. Consequently, all we have is fideism, though we do have
evidences that make the scientific endeavor, etc., more plausible, a
simpler "hypothesis" than rejection of "common sense."
Dave
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:17:06 -0600 Tom Pearson <pearson@panam1.panam.edu>
writes:
> At 09:06 PM 01/23/2001 +0000, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >Does anyone have any fact that is verifiable about Christianity
> which makes
> >a difference to the central issue of God invading history?
> >
> >Only by an affirmative, can we totally escape the issue of faith
> based upon
> >faith.
>
> Glenn, I apologize for intruding on the coversation at this point,
> especially since others have responded to you in their own way, but
> I'm
> honestly puzzled by what you appear to be asking for. I don't
> understand
> why "faith based upon faith" is a problem, and I certainly don't
> undersatnd
> how we could ever "totally escape" such a condition.
>
> For instance, there seem to be at least a couple of faith claims in
> your
> question above. You apparently believe that there are "facts," and
> that
> these "facts" can be "verified" by some procedure. But how do we
> establish
> the existence of "facts," particularly of the sort that you
> repeatedly ask
> for? What "fact" will demonstrate the existence of "facts"? And
> how do
> we establish what it means to "verify" something? Is there a way
> that we
> can "verify" the proper approach to "verifying"? The difficulty
> here is an
> endless regress, and the most genuine response to that regress is
> to
> acknowledge that our confidence in these things rests on faith. Why
> think
> that "facts" and "verifying" are something other than a set of faith
> claims?
>
> I should confess that I am something of a direct realist, and not
> some
> slack-jawed postmodernist who delights in catching people up in
> these
> self-referential paradoxes. I do believe in "facts," and (within
> limits)
> some versions of "verifying." But my commitment to them is a faith
> commitment, and I don't see how else it would be possible to ground
> them.
> And it seems epistemically appropriate to me that people (including
> those
> who engage in serious scientific inquiry) should be satisfied with
> ding their commitments in this way. I don't see the problem.
>
> The same issues, I think, can be approached from another angle. I
> know a
> lot of Christians who establish their their theological certainties
> by
> holding to propositions such as the following:
>
> *God desires to reveal Himself to human beings
> *That revelation consists primarily in the communication of
> information
> *That information is reducible to expression in language
> *The basic lingusitic expression is propositions
> *Propositions, therefore, convey God's revelation
> *Human beings are so created that an orderly assemblage of divine
> propositions are intelligible to us
> *The most natural place to encounter an orderly assemblage of
> divine
> propositions is in a written text
> *The Bible is a written text, purporting to contain such divine
> propositions
> *The Bible is, therefore, an orderly assemblage of divine
> propositions
> *The Bible was, therefore, authored by God
> *The Bible contains divine information that is intelligible to human
> beings
> *The Bible is a final and independent authority, inspired and
> reliable, of
> God's revelation
>
> Now, I don't deny any of those propositions. But none of them are
> "facts,"
> and none of them can be "verified." They are all faith statements.
> Are we
> to jettison the Bible as an authoritative source of divine
> revelation,
> then, since our reliance on it is not based on "facts"? All of the
> historical data will not ultimately validate the truth of the
> propositions
> above. Historical data, considered as independent "facts," can only
> make
> those propositions more or less probable; they cannot "verify."
> Historical
> data is not useless or irrelevant to Christian faith; it just won't
> do what
> you apparently want it to do. In that sense, I suppose I would not
> go the
> way that George Andrews has suggested, making revelation a
> contemporary
> subjective experience, since the pivotal confession of Christians is
> not
> about what happens now, but about what happened on Calvary. Still,
> what
> happened on Calvary cannot be reduced to a set of public "facts" (if
> it
> were so reducible, I imagine a great many more of us would be
> clamoring for
> another look at the Shroud of Turin, for instance). So in the long
> run --
> 2,000 years worth -- we are back to "faith based upon faith."
>
> It makes sense to me that people would trust the central testimony
> of
> Christianity -- the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ --
> because there
> has been a community of faith that has witnessed to these things for
> the
> past 2,000 years, and that this community, fluid in all its
> expressions
> over the centuries, has created a series of doctrines, documents
> (including
> the Bible) and practices that continue to embody the spiritual power
> and
> hope of the Christian faith. But nothing in that previous
> sentence
> constitutes anything like "facts" that can "verify" the truth of
> Christianity, and it likely sounds like a weak mush of meaningless
> verbiage
> to anyone whose faith is in "facts" and "verification." It doesn't
> seem to
> me that there is any way to arbitrate whether a faith in "facts"
> and
> "verification" is any more reliable, or any more suitable, to our
> reflections on Christianity than is a faith in the Church and its
> traditional claims and practices. And I honestly don't understand
> why any
> Christian would demand more than the latter. Is there any genuine
> epistemic advantage to be gained by arguing for "facts" and
> "verification"
> as if they were more than a set of faith commitments? Can you help
> me with
> this?
>
> Tom Pearson
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Thomas D. Pearson
> Department of History & Philosophy
> The University of Texas-Pan American
> Edinburg, Texas
> e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 23:24:07 EST