Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
25 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:29 pm
Charlie, can a non-Christian weatherman tell me it's raining outside? If so, then all of his knowledge isn't meaningless. That's what I mean.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by Eat crow » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:34 pm
So, I take it you're going at the failures of Hellenistic reasoning perhaps. I asked the question because standing on its own merit to be asked is like teaching others to never teach.
It reminds me of a discussion I had when I was working on my first masters in spiritual formation. The professor was vehement in that philosophy was at the base of one's worldview, whereas I took the position that belief is. As it was once said, "Logic is neither an art nor a science, but a dodge." Greek approaches to reality are helpful in our western mindset ways of thinking, but the eastern and Jewish way of looking towards revelation point to the limits of understanding epistemology in a decayed and fallen nature.
I think if one is not aware of our limitations to even approaching epistemological ramifications of humanity's status outside divine intervention of a loving holy God, then we truly cannot even give breath nor life to the topic. It then blunts the point of discussion to my mind.
It reminds me of a discussion I had when I was working on my first masters in spiritual formation. The professor was vehement in that philosophy was at the base of one's worldview, whereas I took the position that belief is. As it was once said, "Logic is neither an art nor a science, but a dodge." Greek approaches to reality are helpful in our western mindset ways of thinking, but the eastern and Jewish way of looking towards revelation point to the limits of understanding epistemology in a decayed and fallen nature.
I think if one is not aware of our limitations to even approaching epistemological ramifications of humanity's status outside divine intervention of a loving holy God, then we truly cannot even give breath nor life to the topic. It then blunts the point of discussion to my mind.
- Eat crow
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:34 pm
Hellenistic reasoning has its brilliances and its failures. Much of Aristotelian and Platonic thought is accurate, and some of it is affirmed in the Bible. I don't think that just because it's Greek, or it's philosophy, or it's logic, or it's from an unbeliever it should be thrown out. God gave us tremendous intellectual capability, and people (like Stephen Hawking) are able to use it to tremendous potential. Now, that doesn't mean Hawking is right about everything; he's not, and he admits it. But he's right about an awful lot, and it's a credit to God's common grace that he has that capability. I don't consider logic a dodge, but a meaningful way to organize thought in reasonable processes. (How's THAT for an off the top of the head definition?) But the kind of reasoning that fathoms the reaches of the universe is both the same and different kind of reasoning that becomes convinced of the veracity of God. We commit to God when God makes sense to us, and when our minds become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is there, that I have sinned, that Jesus redeemed me, and that by confession and repentance I can be made new. It's a spiritual process, but it's also a mental and an emotional one. Epistemology doesn't need God, but it's far from complete without Him, because it's only going to give a partial at best and distorted at worst image of what I know, how I know it, and what CAN be known. We are all plagued by a fallen nature, and so our knowledge is only partial, as Paul so aptly put in 1 Cor. 13. But combining knowledge with faith with WISDOM with the fear of God—now we're on to something priceless.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by Jesse James » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:05 pm
Jim, in regards to your original question ("[...] at what point do faith and knowledge merge, and at what points do they differentiate"), it seems like a hardcore skeptic can always ply his trade, regardless of any epistemic model. Just like the ardent atheist, a committed questioner can always find reasons to disbelieve. A perennial skeptic (or a second year philosophy major) could play the same obnoxious game that militant atheists play with Christians: constantly finding some hole that, by the nature of reality, can’t be filled.
For a definitive example, the Cartesian mind experiment that discarded everything that was uncertain ended up with a possibility that there is only one person and that one person comprises a brain in a vat; all else is illusion. There is also the “free thinker” who will ask, between puffs, “Hey man, what if our world is, like, just a cell on a giant? And what if there is, like, a whole world in each of our cells? I just blew my own mind, man!” Thought experiments are useful and fun, but ultimately, everyone eventually has to accept that things are, in some sense, as they appear to be.
I agree with Charlie that the natural order, created by God, illustrates His Being; but I would also say that people can only apprehend His existence and accept it when God removes the film from their eyes, changes their heart of stone to a heart of flesh, and makes them His sheep. It's His Amazing Grace that "I once was blind but now I see;" not through any work of my own, but all through His grace. Our sin nature (our ontology), which destroys the original relationship humanity had with God, suppresses our perception of spiritual and metaphysical reality and thereby restricts or limits our epistemology. On our own, we can’t have a perfectly justified epistemology.
Charlie might agree that suppression of our ability to perceive the true nature of existence results in the necessity of faith—for both Christians and otherwise. As Christians, “we know that we know” but there is always the interplay between belief and doubt. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I think it is important to admit that we (even as Christians; or maybe especially as Christians) rely on faith and that there is always belief that is “unproven” to some degree. Non-Christian materialists have to take, by faith, that their perceptions are reliable and that science can measure and predict actual “things.”
I also agree with Jim that even the atheist weatherman can know it is raining. Heck, even a liberal arts biology professor can “know” that gravity works when he knocks over his bust of Darwin while reaching for his bowl of free-trade kimchi. So there is always some uncertainty; every branch of philosophy has to deal with its own epistemic failings. I remember when I was taking a philosophy of science class discussing whether a microscope actually depicts what is on the stage and how we can rely on the rules of optics and on and on. There is, potentially, no end to doubt.
Ultimately, unless you are going to take the position that perception isn’t reliable and that even sense of self is illusion, you have to establish some thing as true. For materialists, truth is the physical reality and no more. For some adherents of eastern religions, truth is the brahma and physical reality is illusion. For Christians, physical reality is real, but there is an underlying spiritual foundation, the Word.
But each of these groups takes something on faith because you can always doubt some aspect of the underlying foundation.
Knowledge, in my understanding, is always built on faith. Faith, though, is a reasoned approach to accepting as true some state of affairs based on the apparent evidence for that state of affairs. Some leaps of faith are longer than others—they cross a longer chasm of doubt.
Most everyone has taken the relatively small leap of faith that people exist and that there are other minds. Most everyone agrees with this because we encounter other people who are apparently sentient every day. People who reject this reality are considered to be crazy because we, as humans who have a mental capacity (which we as Christians know is granted by God), have determined pretty much as a group that it is reasonable to accept that other people exist.
Other things take a bit of a greater leap of faith: did humans actually land on the moon? There is some doubt. Is ISIS a false flag manufactured by the CIA and Mossad in order to gin up tension and have a proxy war in the Middle East and distract people so that the illuminati can do some other activity—a sort of sleight of hand? Maybe that takes a bit more faith to believe—a larger chasm of doubt because there needs to be more evidence to support such a position.
Christianity is particular because once you take the leap (after God sort of either takes your hand and leads you to leap, or He pushes you off the ledge), the chasm seems much smaller.
At what points to faith and knowledge merge? Every point along the way. Where do they depart? When people believe unjustified things. A bit of a ramble, I know.
For a definitive example, the Cartesian mind experiment that discarded everything that was uncertain ended up with a possibility that there is only one person and that one person comprises a brain in a vat; all else is illusion. There is also the “free thinker” who will ask, between puffs, “Hey man, what if our world is, like, just a cell on a giant? And what if there is, like, a whole world in each of our cells? I just blew my own mind, man!” Thought experiments are useful and fun, but ultimately, everyone eventually has to accept that things are, in some sense, as they appear to be.
I agree with Charlie that the natural order, created by God, illustrates His Being; but I would also say that people can only apprehend His existence and accept it when God removes the film from their eyes, changes their heart of stone to a heart of flesh, and makes them His sheep. It's His Amazing Grace that "I once was blind but now I see;" not through any work of my own, but all through His grace. Our sin nature (our ontology), which destroys the original relationship humanity had with God, suppresses our perception of spiritual and metaphysical reality and thereby restricts or limits our epistemology. On our own, we can’t have a perfectly justified epistemology.
Charlie might agree that suppression of our ability to perceive the true nature of existence results in the necessity of faith—for both Christians and otherwise. As Christians, “we know that we know” but there is always the interplay between belief and doubt. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I think it is important to admit that we (even as Christians; or maybe especially as Christians) rely on faith and that there is always belief that is “unproven” to some degree. Non-Christian materialists have to take, by faith, that their perceptions are reliable and that science can measure and predict actual “things.”
I also agree with Jim that even the atheist weatherman can know it is raining. Heck, even a liberal arts biology professor can “know” that gravity works when he knocks over his bust of Darwin while reaching for his bowl of free-trade kimchi. So there is always some uncertainty; every branch of philosophy has to deal with its own epistemic failings. I remember when I was taking a philosophy of science class discussing whether a microscope actually depicts what is on the stage and how we can rely on the rules of optics and on and on. There is, potentially, no end to doubt.
Ultimately, unless you are going to take the position that perception isn’t reliable and that even sense of self is illusion, you have to establish some thing as true. For materialists, truth is the physical reality and no more. For some adherents of eastern religions, truth is the brahma and physical reality is illusion. For Christians, physical reality is real, but there is an underlying spiritual foundation, the Word.
But each of these groups takes something on faith because you can always doubt some aspect of the underlying foundation.
Knowledge, in my understanding, is always built on faith. Faith, though, is a reasoned approach to accepting as true some state of affairs based on the apparent evidence for that state of affairs. Some leaps of faith are longer than others—they cross a longer chasm of doubt.
Most everyone has taken the relatively small leap of faith that people exist and that there are other minds. Most everyone agrees with this because we encounter other people who are apparently sentient every day. People who reject this reality are considered to be crazy because we, as humans who have a mental capacity (which we as Christians know is granted by God), have determined pretty much as a group that it is reasonable to accept that other people exist.
Other things take a bit of a greater leap of faith: did humans actually land on the moon? There is some doubt. Is ISIS a false flag manufactured by the CIA and Mossad in order to gin up tension and have a proxy war in the Middle East and distract people so that the illuminati can do some other activity—a sort of sleight of hand? Maybe that takes a bit more faith to believe—a larger chasm of doubt because there needs to be more evidence to support such a position.
Christianity is particular because once you take the leap (after God sort of either takes your hand and leads you to leap, or He pushes you off the ledge), the chasm seems much smaller.
At what points to faith and knowledge merge? Every point along the way. Where do they depart? When people believe unjustified things. A bit of a ramble, I know.
- Jesse James
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by The Charlie Factory » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:08 pm
Faith is believing what God has said. Until we build our ontology and epistemology on what He said, we err.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 1:9; 9:10).
Jesus allowed that the weathermen of his time could rightly predict the weather but also rebuked them for not rightly assessing the times (Mt. 16.3). Jesus did not tell them their epistemology of weather was wrong. He said they did not continue the path and follow it to a right assessment of the Scriptures applied to their time.
Everyone's epistemology works, functions, provides pragmatic results. The problem is not epistemology but the willfulness to suppress the ontological truth of God and so darken their hearts.
Jesse said, "Charlie might agree that suppression of our ability to perceive the true nature of existence results in the necessity of faith – for both Christians and otherwise."
Belief is necessary for epistemology not merely because we have sinned and the world is broken. This makes it more necessary but is not the ultimate reason. Belief is necessary to our epistemology because we are not the all knowing God and thus are compelled to rely on what he tells us regarding ontology. Sin complicates this because now we, including Christians, suppress the truth to one degree or another.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 1:9; 9:10).
Jesus allowed that the weathermen of his time could rightly predict the weather but also rebuked them for not rightly assessing the times (Mt. 16.3). Jesus did not tell them their epistemology of weather was wrong. He said they did not continue the path and follow it to a right assessment of the Scriptures applied to their time.
Everyone's epistemology works, functions, provides pragmatic results. The problem is not epistemology but the willfulness to suppress the ontological truth of God and so darken their hearts.
Jesse said, "Charlie might agree that suppression of our ability to perceive the true nature of existence results in the necessity of faith – for both Christians and otherwise."
Belief is necessary for epistemology not merely because we have sinned and the world is broken. This makes it more necessary but is not the ultimate reason. Belief is necessary to our epistemology because we are not the all knowing God and thus are compelled to rely on what he tells us regarding ontology. Sin complicates this because now we, including Christians, suppress the truth to one degree or another.
- The Charlie Factory
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by Jesse James » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:15 pm
What do you think it will be like in heaven, when the relationship between He and we is restored? We won't need some faith because we won't be seeing "in a glass darkly, but rather face to face." But will we know God's mind well enough to understand everything? What will our epistemology be then? Will we still need "faith"?
I don't think that epistemic foundations are weak simply because we are not God. We can admit to not knowing things without it affecting our epistemology. For example, I can say that I know that Bernoulli’s principle adequately explains the ability for airplanes to generate lift and that is an epistemic statement; I am making a truth claim about some belief. But is saying “I don’t know what hell will be like” an epistemic claim? Isn’t it a deferring of a claim—that is, admitting ignorance? Would admitting ignorance be the opposite of faith? Some of this may simply be semantics.
I would say that faith is having a belief in something that can be doubted; that includes what God has said but it includes just about everything else too. Like when Ebenezer Scrooge didn't believe he was seeing Marley—he attributed it to some undigested meat.
I would not say that “everyone's epistemology works, functions, provides pragmatic results.” Epistemology is "how we know what we know" or "the study of the certitude of our own beliefs." Relativists' epistemology doesn't work, function, or provide pragmatic results when you scrutinize it even a little bit. They say "nothing is true" but that statement is self-referentially inconsistent and therefore rubbish! Crazy people can have an epistemology that is totally coherent within itself, but provides no pragmatic results. The epistemology of “climate change” for example makes assumptions that are fed into models and then when the models predict the assumptions, they warmists act like it is news that their models spit out their assumptions. So their epistemology is self-referentially consistent, but it doesn’t necessarily match up to reality.
A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality. Christianity is the only one that does that while being comprehensive too. It’s coherent in that it is intelligible and accords with the premises of logic and rationality; it is consistent in that all of the parts complement one another and do not contradict one another; it matches up with reality because it can explain and predict the order of things which are within its purview. But it is also comprehensive because its purview encompasses physical and spiritual reality. No other school of thought, religion, or faith can do all that.
I don't think that epistemic foundations are weak simply because we are not God. We can admit to not knowing things without it affecting our epistemology. For example, I can say that I know that Bernoulli’s principle adequately explains the ability for airplanes to generate lift and that is an epistemic statement; I am making a truth claim about some belief. But is saying “I don’t know what hell will be like” an epistemic claim? Isn’t it a deferring of a claim—that is, admitting ignorance? Would admitting ignorance be the opposite of faith? Some of this may simply be semantics.
I would say that faith is having a belief in something that can be doubted; that includes what God has said but it includes just about everything else too. Like when Ebenezer Scrooge didn't believe he was seeing Marley—he attributed it to some undigested meat.
I would not say that “everyone's epistemology works, functions, provides pragmatic results.” Epistemology is "how we know what we know" or "the study of the certitude of our own beliefs." Relativists' epistemology doesn't work, function, or provide pragmatic results when you scrutinize it even a little bit. They say "nothing is true" but that statement is self-referentially inconsistent and therefore rubbish! Crazy people can have an epistemology that is totally coherent within itself, but provides no pragmatic results. The epistemology of “climate change” for example makes assumptions that are fed into models and then when the models predict the assumptions, they warmists act like it is news that their models spit out their assumptions. So their epistemology is self-referentially consistent, but it doesn’t necessarily match up to reality.
A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality. Christianity is the only one that does that while being comprehensive too. It’s coherent in that it is intelligible and accords with the premises of logic and rationality; it is consistent in that all of the parts complement one another and do not contradict one another; it matches up with reality because it can explain and predict the order of things which are within its purview. But it is also comprehensive because its purview encompasses physical and spiritual reality. No other school of thought, religion, or faith can do all that.
- Jesse James
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:20 pm
A confusion between epistemology and omniscience seems to be rising. Charlie seems to be advocating that because unbelievers don't have the benefit of revelation their knowledge base is unreliable. Jesse corrects that with acknowledging, as I did, the knowledge that results from common grace and the addition to that which is revelation.
Charlie, you invoked a definition of faith as "believing what God has said." You're obviously an astute person, so you recognize, as a pastor/professor that in the Bible "faith" has different meanings: (1) our dogma: the faith, (2) trust in God: belief, (3) our Christian commitment to Jesus. The definition I was working with was that facet "evidence of things not seen; the assurance of what we hope for." At what points do belief and knowledge intersect/contradict/separate? I happen to believe (there's that crazy word!) that faith and knowledge intersect over broad realms—that there is hardly any place where faith and knowledge aren't hand in hand. I know the atheists I talk to consider faith as a blind leap in the dark, with no possible intersection points with "real" knowledge. I think people, no matter their religious persuasions, exercise faith every day. Every time they turn the key to start the car, sit in a chair, head to the store—they can't KNOW the car will start, the chair will hold, or that the store is really there. Such faith is a knowledge based on assumptions underwritten by enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with "believing what God has said." But that's what I started this thread for—to poke around in other people's brains for lots of good ideas about faith and epistemology!
Charlie, you invoked a definition of faith as "believing what God has said." You're obviously an astute person, so you recognize, as a pastor/professor that in the Bible "faith" has different meanings: (1) our dogma: the faith, (2) trust in God: belief, (3) our Christian commitment to Jesus. The definition I was working with was that facet "evidence of things not seen; the assurance of what we hope for." At what points do belief and knowledge intersect/contradict/separate? I happen to believe (there's that crazy word!) that faith and knowledge intersect over broad realms—that there is hardly any place where faith and knowledge aren't hand in hand. I know the atheists I talk to consider faith as a blind leap in the dark, with no possible intersection points with "real" knowledge. I think people, no matter their religious persuasions, exercise faith every day. Every time they turn the key to start the car, sit in a chair, head to the store—they can't KNOW the car will start, the chair will hold, or that the store is really there. Such faith is a knowledge based on assumptions underwritten by enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with "believing what God has said." But that's what I started this thread for—to poke around in other people's brains for lots of good ideas about faith and epistemology!
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by The Charlie Factory » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:19 pm
The Christian epistemology rightly matches up to reality (ontology) as long as it accepts what God has said about reality. A Christian's ontological assertions and epistemological system has to begin with the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7; 9:10).
Proverbs 1:7 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
If we do not begin with the Fear of the Lord then we have no knowledge for the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge. It is also the BEGINNING of wisdom.
We cannot begin with "A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality." unless we immediately follow that reality is exactly what God says it is NOT as a human being perceives and understands it to be without reference to God.
Do we believe the Bible (God)? or do we want to talk philosophically devoid of the reality of God? The Bible has to drive the discussion of epistemology not logic or philosophers. The biggest hurdle in epistemology is the fear of the Lord (belief) for only it allows us to stop suppressing God from ontological assertions that darken our understanding instead of bringing light (Rom. 1:18-23)
Proverbs 1:7 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
If we do not begin with the Fear of the Lord then we have no knowledge for the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge. It is also the BEGINNING of wisdom.
We cannot begin with "A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality." unless we immediately follow that reality is exactly what God says it is NOT as a human being perceives and understands it to be without reference to God.
Do we believe the Bible (God)? or do we want to talk philosophically devoid of the reality of God? The Bible has to drive the discussion of epistemology not logic or philosophers. The biggest hurdle in epistemology is the fear of the Lord (belief) for only it allows us to stop suppressing God from ontological assertions that darken our understanding instead of bringing light (Rom. 1:18-23)
- The Charlie Factory
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by The Charlie Factory » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:27 pm
I understand you do not think my ideas of epistemology and faith are "good." However, I have at least tried to align my understanding to that of Scripture.
Romans 1:18-23 speaks to epistemology. The unbeliever "knows" God from what he "perceives" from creation. He suppresses the truth of God from creation (self-deception in disbelief). Thus his "thinking" is futile and his foolish heart (foolish for suppressing the God he knows) becomes dark.
If you do not begin to assess the unbeliever from this epistemological starting point then you begin in error.
If you would rather have your discussion without the drudgery of trying to remain biblical (fear of the Lord) in the discussion then I will bow out. Any remaining conversation will not produce knowledge but more suppression.
Romans 1:18-23 speaks to epistemology. The unbeliever "knows" God from what he "perceives" from creation. He suppresses the truth of God from creation (self-deception in disbelief). Thus his "thinking" is futile and his foolish heart (foolish for suppressing the God he knows) becomes dark.
If you do not begin to assess the unbeliever from this epistemological starting point then you begin in error.
If you would rather have your discussion without the drudgery of trying to remain biblical (fear of the Lord) in the discussion then I will bow out. Any remaining conversation will not produce knowledge but more suppression.
- The Charlie Factory
Re: Epistemology and Faith
by JEsse James » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:31 pm
Is anyone trying to refrain from being Biblical? I missed that part.
Charlie, would you admit that there is truth that it not in the Bible? If not, could you show me in the Bible where to find truth about electrical wiring?
Look, we are having conversations about big topics here, topics that the Bible certainly speaks to but which extra-Biblical "schools" speak to as well. Discussing those other "schools" does not in any way diminish the Bible; rather, it acknowledges that common grace has been liberally (but not exhaustively) given to all (Romans 1:18-13 - I think you may recognize that passage) and that, with that common grace, we have the ability to perceive, evaluate, and conclude. None of this means that extra-Biblical truths can supersede or contradict the Bible.
Quite the contrary: all truth must be in accord with the Bible. All truth is God's truth and is harmonious. It may be concluded, for example, by a non-Christian group that the best way to raise a child is in a home with a mother and father. The source of the study doesn't make it false though. It is in fact true; it also agrees with the Bible.
But Bernoulli's principle is also true; however, it's not in the Bible. Is this a problem? Not at all. Did the fear of the Lord allow Archimedes to perform his experiments? Does that math that a physicist uses work because he fears God?
I am not sure that the verses from Proverbs use the word knowledge not in the same way that a weatherman does. It seems like you may be equivocating on the definition of "knowledge." You acknowledge that the weatherman can predict weather but that his knowledge of, let say, “higher things” is lacking. Certainly a proper understanding of God and fear of the Lord will yield a more complete knowledge, but that doesn’t mean that all knowledge is dependent upon that understanding of God. That’s why science works! We have the book of nature that God gave to all (Romans 1:18-23).
I don’t think anyone considers Biblical understanding to be drudgery. We are all professing Christians here (to my knowledge). What I think is happening, what I am trying to do anyway, is to understand the way non-Christians defend their unbelief and figure out how that lines up with the general and specific revelations God has granted.
No big deal, no drama, and no drudgery need be involved.
Charlie, would you admit that there is truth that it not in the Bible? If not, could you show me in the Bible where to find truth about electrical wiring?
Look, we are having conversations about big topics here, topics that the Bible certainly speaks to but which extra-Biblical "schools" speak to as well. Discussing those other "schools" does not in any way diminish the Bible; rather, it acknowledges that common grace has been liberally (but not exhaustively) given to all (Romans 1:18-13 - I think you may recognize that passage) and that, with that common grace, we have the ability to perceive, evaluate, and conclude. None of this means that extra-Biblical truths can supersede or contradict the Bible.
Quite the contrary: all truth must be in accord with the Bible. All truth is God's truth and is harmonious. It may be concluded, for example, by a non-Christian group that the best way to raise a child is in a home with a mother and father. The source of the study doesn't make it false though. It is in fact true; it also agrees with the Bible.
But Bernoulli's principle is also true; however, it's not in the Bible. Is this a problem? Not at all. Did the fear of the Lord allow Archimedes to perform his experiments? Does that math that a physicist uses work because he fears God?
I am not sure that the verses from Proverbs use the word knowledge not in the same way that a weatherman does. It seems like you may be equivocating on the definition of "knowledge." You acknowledge that the weatherman can predict weather but that his knowledge of, let say, “higher things” is lacking. Certainly a proper understanding of God and fear of the Lord will yield a more complete knowledge, but that doesn’t mean that all knowledge is dependent upon that understanding of God. That’s why science works! We have the book of nature that God gave to all (Romans 1:18-23).
I don’t think anyone considers Biblical understanding to be drudgery. We are all professing Christians here (to my knowledge). What I think is happening, what I am trying to do anyway, is to understand the way non-Christians defend their unbelief and figure out how that lines up with the general and specific revelations God has granted.
No big deal, no drama, and no drudgery need be involved.
- JEsse James
25 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests