Friday, December 18, 2009
Boxes Aren't All That Interesting Unless You Turn Them Into Rocket Ships.
Today I just realized that I am generally not that much interested in the truth, but I am interested in philosophy. People wonder: How can a person interested in philosophy not be interested in truth? Because there is no such thing as "truth". Propositions are certainly true, partially true, or false. "Truth claims" are either true or false, but there is a distinction between "truth" and "things that are true". By this I am simply admitting that there are limits to human knowledge. We all agree that we can't know everything, at least I think we all agree with that. So the obvious question is, if we can't know everything, how can we know that what we know we know. My good friend Josh would tell me that no one believes you can know everything with 100% certainty, but that there are degrees of probability of a truth claim's being true, depending on a few categorical tests. But even if we can know 99% of everything how could we know that the knowledge of that 1% we don't know wouldn't revolutionize all that we know. It gets stupid, and trust me. It could get stupider. That's why I am not that much interested in truth. I mean that I am not too interested in whether an unclear truth claim can be demonstrated in be in fact true. Truthfully, I am not sure what this even means. It's not that I don't think that truth exists. I just don't think it can be easily contained within a system.As long as one realized that a box is not the toy, and that multiple boxes can contain the toy, I can be a part of interesting conversation. What I am essentially saying is that I am not much interested in boxes as I am in toys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
John 14:6
I am assuming that you gave me this verse as a refutation of what I just said about truth. For what it's worth, I affirm that Jesus is the truth (well because that is what he said), but I don't affirm that truth is only knowable when systematized. So if we let Jesus statement stand by itself, its either true or not. How do you know? It's not by putting it into a man made category. It's by faith. By faith I do not mean blind faith in which the evidence is not examined. I believe that if the evidence is examined that belief in Jesus is more reasonable than belief in anything else, but nothing can be proven beyond a shawdow by reason, at some point, we must believe. I am confident that you misunderstood my post, and am equally as confident that John 14:6 has nothing to do with what I was talking about. In my view I wrote nothing that was antithetical to Scripture, if you disagree I would ask that you demonstrate how in your view I wrote something that was antithetical to Scripture. Thanks Rob.
No, in fact, I gave you this verse as a refutation to what you said about Jesus because Jesus said I am the Truth in John 14:6 and in your post you said “there is no such thing as “truth”” The question I have is not whether or not you “affirm” Jesus is the truth for according to James 2:19 even the demons do that, but do you "believe" in the sense of the word used in John 3:16? Affirmation and belief are very distinct concepts when discussing things of eternal importance such as truth.
I agree. Affirmation and belief are different. The context of the James passage you are referring to contends that belief is made manifest by action not just lip service. Perhaps I should qualify this and say that I do believe that "Jesus is the truth", Certainly the gospel is objective. I know you agree. But wouldn't you also agree that the knowledge of Christ is based on a volitional, and subjective choice of the individual. What I am not questioning is the validity of the truth claim, but the validity of modern apologetic arguments in favor of Christian truth claims. Is there a more persuasive way leading people to Christ in a postmodern era than the ways offered by the likes of Josh Mcdowell, Lee Strobel, and Ravi Zacharias? Can we not use postmodernism's emphasis on introspection to lead introverts to the Savior, much like modernists like Lewis were compelled by the historical facts of the resurrection? Don't worry I wouldn't suggest that we what we need is a "new kind of Christian" as Brian McClaren so "delicately" puts it. But maybe we do need a new kind of argument, (and argument is probably not the right word) let's say rhetoric. I know conservatives for whom whom this idea is not scary, namely D.A. Carson.
Post a Comment