Comments on Approaching the Abyss: A Benefit of Non-Certainty

When Paul said that we see in a mirror in a riddle...

2007-08-16T00:14:00.000-04:00

When Paul said that we see in a mirror in a riddle, it was in context of God's love. There is a craving for complete knowledge on some human foundation - and it can be anything ranging from cold rationalism to the mystery cults - that works by dispensing with the love of God, which rejoices in the truth and therefore gets us the certainty we need as nothing else does.

I think in this that Paul was expounding an earlier point, that he wants our faith to stand in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men - of whatever sort.

OK, sounds like a I misunderstood. I'm glad to se...

2007-08-14T16:02:59.592-04:00

OK, sounds like a I misunderstood. I'm glad to see we're on the same page.

Later!

I think you're totally spot on when you say at bes...

2007-08-14T15:16:00.000-04:00

I think you're totally spot on when you say at best we've got relative certainty.

I wasn't making the accusation that you're trying to put faith in a box.

We've seen extremes, where faith is all knowledge or where faith is completely blind. And it seems they like to claim they're somewhere in between but I'd like to challenge that by saying: Like hell you are.

Instead of 90%, how about the majority of Christians? Or our institutions?

Hey man,Thanks for the comments. I'm glad you're ...

2007-08-14T11:54:19.687-04:00

Hey man,

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad you're reading.

This is actually not a blanket statement. It is a statement regarding a specific epistemological point. If I said, "In Christianity there is absolutely no knowledge," I think you could say that I had made a blanket statement. But what I am saying is that no complete knowledge is available to anyone--including Christians.

Also, you are correct that Christians (I'm not sure about the 90% estimate) have some sort of "certainty." But "some sort of 'certainty'" and true epistemological certainty are two different things. Atheism (by some definitions) claims to have absolute epistemological certainty regarding God's ontological status ("We know God definitely does not exist.) Many Christians have attempted to counter that with their own arguments and to try to establish their own epistemological certainty regarding his ontological status ("we know God definitely does exist.")

My point is sort of in line with the thinking at the end of your comment--that the Bible doesn't approach things from a modern understanding of knowledge. It doesn't claim that you have absolute certainty according to a modern standard. So I am advocating to abandon the modern standard and approach Christianity from the perspective of faith, not knowledge.

For that matter, I understand you to be saying that we claim to have knowledge about things like the periodic table of the elements, the color of the sky (which is a subjective accidental quality and not something that I think can be objectively known), and the concept of ontological categories (this is a chair). But I would submit that in every case you have stated, we also only have relative certainty. For instance, if we can trust our senses and the information we have collected, and if we have not incorrectly labeled them, and if the physical world really does exist and is not a figment of our imaginations--then we can have relative knowledge that the periodic table of the elements is accurate (I'm not saying I believe those things--but that there are legitimate grounds to doubt). Humans do want definite answers, but I think we need to accept that we can only have relative certainty.

You are correct that people have tried to put faith in the box. I'm not certain what you meant in saying that, but hopefully you see that I'm actually NOT putting faith in the box! I'm trying to release it from the box that modern Christians attempt to put it into.

You stated... "That is also the strength of Christ...

2007-08-14T11:05:00.000-04:00

You stated...

"That is also the strength of Christianity. We don't claim to have complete knowledge--far from it."

And I'm not too sure how I sit with this because I find it a blanket statement. For starters, I would estimate that 90%+ have some sort of "certainty." Moreso, if mainstream Christianity as we know it could put faith/Christianity within a periodic table of elements... they would and in some sense they already have. That is, how I see it, a modern approach of faith to a modern sense of atheism.

Now, I'm babbling...

As humans we want definite answers - the sky is blue, this is a chair, this is how we do math but I believe when it comes to faith... our modern approach has done it an injustice. We've attempted to come up with clear and concise answers, make things black and white, and tried to put faith in a box (a periodic table type box).

I think the entire conversation is pretty much being re-engineered at this point. We know something happened, but as far as pinpointing where our (sometimes crappy) theology comes from is changing or is seemingly becoming less and less important.

More later.

Well, that's funny! Actually, this method of dati...

2007-06-25T13:40:46.337-04:00

Well, that's funny! Actually, this method of dating places the month in the second spot and the day in the first. So it is actually June, not July! Sorry for the confusion!

I have to be honest that i haven't even read this ...

2007-06-25T11:06:00.000-04:00

I have to be honest that i haven't even read this post yet, but I think it blows your whole openess belief if you can even post in the future. How did you get it to date the 6th of July?

The word I was looking for was "empirical." I do ...

2007-06-13T23:36:15.245-04:00

The word I was looking for was "empirical." I do think Thomas was looking for "emprical" proof of Jesus' resurrection.

j

Well, I appreciate your openness to these thoughts...

2007-06-13T22:44:45.531-04:00

Well, I appreciate your openness to these thoughts. You and Terry have been very patient with me about all of this and I appreciate that you guys haven't judged me about it!

I think you are actually presenting a very good alternative, and it is the alternative I am trying to get to. You are really discussing knowledge in a relational sense--ginosko, not oida. (Or is it the other way around?) That is what I think the Bible refers to when it speaks of knowledge. You are presenting the alternative of relational knowledge, I "know" God like I "know" you, my friend.

I want you to know that I do understand this type of knowledge, I do feel that I "know" him personally. What I am wrestling with is a sort of enlightenment view of knowledge--that I can have a complete grasp on the nature of his existence and say I know with certainty that I am not fooled. Even though I believe I know him personally, I cannot say that I couldn't be fooled into thinking so.

I'm not sure I agree with your take on Thomas' doubt of who Jesus is. It seems that Thomas' doubt was whether he believed Jesus could be alive--he was told that Jesus was seen alive and he said, "I will not accept it until I have physical proof."

Also, your analogy of me not checking to make sure you exist is kind of relevant, but I don't think it is exactly right on. When you are in my office, I can say, "I know Darryl, who he is and what his beliefs and passions are, etc." That is relational knowledge. But I can't say that I know with certainty that I am not fooled into believing in your existence.

Most people I know get frustrated and think that is ridiculous. There is an element of the ridiculous about it--on a practical level why even bother with that question? But when we're talking about metaphysics, I think the question has more bearing. Though I know him personally, can I say that I know I am not fooled?

This modern understanding of knowledge is the real difficulty. Also, I want you to know that am not questioning his presence in my life. I feel something which I interpret to be his presence, I recognize something which I assume is his activity. But I cannot say that I "know" that is God.

No. You are not worse off for not sharing my questions! I wish that I didn't have this question, but now that I have asked it, I don't think it is possible to ignore it.

Jason, I hadn't read your blog in a while and I th...

2007-06-13T17:43:00.000-04:00

Jason, I hadn't read your blog in a while and I thought that I would catch up. You have been talking a lot abut knowledge and belief in the posts that you have been leaving. I like your train of thought that you ended with. Ultimately epistemological certainty may not have any more relevance at all to the situation in the end. You cited the situation with Thomas, whom i think has gotten a rotten rap as doubting Thomas. The question may not be his wanting evidence but his acceptance of the person of Christ. I don't think I said that very well let me try again. The question for Thomas, and for us, is not whether or not Jesus exists, after all He was standing right in front of Thomas. But whether or not we accept who He is. When you and I talk in your office you never run around the desk and make certain I am who I say I am. Our belief must be centered around our personal relationship with the Lord. His existence is not precipitated because of my knowledge of Him, but my knowledge of Him precipitates my relationship with Him. I can testify about Jesus to my friends and neighbors because I am certain of my relationship with Him. Is this a feeling? When I try to examine this sureness it is not something that I feel as much as it is a sense of His presence, much like you know when someone else walks into the room without seeing them or hearing them. I know this rambles a bit I will have to give it a little more thought. Your posts made me realize that maybe not all believers are certain of His presence in their lives. I do know that I would be poorer for that lack. Darryl