Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Who Knows? Minute Particulars has a long post here on the nature of religious belief and knowing. Mark writes: One “believes” in the Resurrection because the event is not simply historical, like Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, but because it is a historical event upon which Creation hinges. Such an event is impervious to reason because: 1) we can't be there ourselves to witness it 2) we can't gather evidence about it empirically (e.g. an attempt to find the bones of the historical figure Jesus Christ) On the contrary, we “believe” because this is the only mechanism by which we can have knowledge of the event. And by “believe” I simply mean “a participation in the knowledge of a knower,” to use Josef Pieper’s phrase. Mark develops these thoughts further. I may getting his point all wrong, but his later conclusions seem to lead up to an idea that I must dispute with a little. He adds: Regarding the Catholic Faith, the first “knower” was the Word Incarnate: Jesus had to know who the Father is, else his revelation of Him to the apostles would not be possible. The apostles had to know who Jesus Christ was, in order to believe what He revealed of the Father. And the community of believers nearly two millennia later must know that the succession of witnesses from the apostles on down has an integrity to it. We as believers are participating in the knowledge the Son revealed of the Father to those He “dwelt among” by knowing the testimony of the apostles and the believing communities (hence Councils, etc.) that has persisted through history. This seems matter of fact for Christians, but his post seems to leave out the knowing that comes from directly seeing and meeting Jesus since his resurrection; that we are entirely dependent on the witness and credible testimony of others. We are dependent in the sense that if no one ever bothered to mention that Jesus was alive and was God to anyone else, then, I suppose the Good News would never have been transmitted. But I don't think that's what Mark is saying. I think he is excluding the apprehension of Truth by direct witness, and that we are dependent on our faith to others long dead. That our leap of faith is more a matter of trust in the past and continuity of belief than in a present God who makes himself known. He concludes: Belief permits us to participate in the knowledge of another person. Belief, therefore, is intimately connected with our ability to recognize another person, to judge his or her integrity, because the credibility of the person is prior to the content of what he or she reveals to us. In this sense too, believing is not a shot in the dark, a wager, or a bet, but, perhaps ironically, a very reasonable thing to do. This is not unreasonable. It is certainly true in a general sense, but do we really want to base our fundamental beliefs about reality upon the word of another? Or would we rather not base our beliefs about reality on our own experience and direct perception, revelation that comes directly from the source. We want to know God, not what someone else says they know and experienced about God. One proof of this is ecstasy. There is not a person living who does not yearn and desire ecstasy. Most look for it in created things and sensual pleasures, but nonetheless, the desire is universally compelling. Nor does anyone simply want to know about your ecstatic experiences or mine. They want their own, and will never really settle for less. Knowing is belief, as Mark seems to be saying, but simply trusting another's knowing is not enough, nor is ultimately satisfying. Man wants to know, and he wants to know for himself without any mediator between himself and the knowledge he desires. Other than purely deductive matters of logic, humanity has never been able to accurately and reliably transmit wisdom from one person to another with complete fidelity and integrity. Participating in the knower is not enough to produce pure conviction, certainty, and confidence. Which is why we see so much emotionalism extended to primary beliefs when they are attacked or challenged. People's certainty is so insecure, that any criticism is perceived as threat and provokes the fight or flight response. But the man who has seen God for himself cannot be shaken, anymore than you can shake the color Blue out of him and make him fear it may not be real. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:21 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
