The Philosophy of "Lost" getting still more "Less Losable"
This has all been fine, so far, when it comes to differences between our lenses. But what about those flaws we may all have, together, as a human race? What about the distorion of the human lens, period?
Well, in that case, it would be a truly great thing, indeed to have a vector that comes from completely outside human thinking to use for our “triangulation” on the grandest scale – to calculate for the errors of the human lens.
It would be a truly great thing, indeed, to have something like a Bible.
Faith might be the flaw in someone's lense...
Or...
Again...
It might be the correction.
Well, in that case, it would be a truly great thing, indeed to have a vector that comes from completely outside human thinking to use for our “triangulation” on the grandest scale – to calculate for the errors of the human lens.
It would be a truly great thing, indeed, to have something like a Bible.
Faith might be the flaw in someone's lense...
Or...
Again...
It might be the correction.
posted by CSW at
8:15 AM
7 Comments:
Great thought. But as soon as I was done reading I could already hear the debate of Scripture innerancy running through my head. How many would accept the Bible as a corrective lens? How many would accept The DaVinci Code as more inspired than the fallacy of an "inspired Word?" Nonetheless, I am still thinking about my "lens".
By
Jonas, at 12:20 PM
I think there's no way around it. That question will always exist because the answer requires faith. Some want certainty and it can only come in part. I'm not afraid of it, though. I think in the context of an honest effort to know an actual advantage will emerge. And if someone isn't honestly trying, then what could be said to them, anyway?
By
CSW, at 2:52 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Josh, at 9:35 PM
The main problem I see with this point is that there is no way we can validate that the Bible's authorship is anything except human. If you want to say that it requires faith to believe it and thus correct your lens you can. However it seems incredibly dangerous to effectively say that, "My lens is corrected because I believe it's corrected."
EDIT: Missed an edit before submission so I deleted the incorrect one.
By
Josh, at 9:36 PM
Shockingly, off hand, I don't think I disagree with you. I could really get blasted for this, but I just don't think closure is possible with very many things. Certainly not with issues of Bible-based faith. The scriptures themselves insist on the importance of faith - and that is acting the absence of closure. Paul even says in Romans 8, "hope that is seen is no hope at all..." I don't think we can hope for un-deniability. I think it should be pretty obvious over time, though, if the supposed "correction to your lens" doesn't correct the results or the performance of that lens.
I don't believe in closure or un-deniability. I do believe that a God worth finding can be found with our full faculties applied. I know that's misty, but I think going any further makes it personal and therefore applicable only to me. It's one of our human tendencies to incessantly extract mystery, wonder and uncertainty wherever we can. I think in some areas, at least for now, it's not extractable.
By
CSW, at 4:04 PM
When we are discussing our theories, interpretations of what is outside of us, then we would all have to agree with you; absolute certainty, or perfect un-deniability, however you wish to phrase it, is an impossibility. Even our most basic interpretations of our world involve unprovable assumptions. Most of us justify these assumptions through their consistency with the vastness of our experiences, or at least accept the assumptions on a pragmatic basis so that we can, seemingly, move around this world and do stuff.
However we should not mistake consistency for proof, since that consistency is brought about by our interpretation of our world through our assumptions.
Do our experiences provide a sufficient test for a document that supposedly is authored by the divine? The success of our experiences with the Bible are evaluated behind the lens that may be flawed, and as such we are completely ill-equiped to evaluate its authenticity.
Imagine looking at an image, behind a distorted lens, without knowledge of the image. If I then give you another lens that I claim corrects for the distortion. You look through the distorted lens and the new lens and see something different. It may certainly produce a different image than the distorted lens by itself, but you are still in no way able to judge how effective a correction the new lens makes, without actual knowledge of the image itself.
In that regard the claims of the Bible tested against our personal experiences with them, are on equal footing with other world-views that yield similar results. For example, believing that Jesus was the son of God may provide wonderful results in your life, whereas somebody else may find that they are better off believing that he was merely a wise-man. From the point of view of testing these claims against our experiences, both people stand on equal footing.
Of course this will not do. The Bible claims to have facts about our natural and super-natural world. Subjectivism will never allow us to determine the authenticity of these fact claims. If we are going to believe that the Bible has divine authorship we need objective evidence. Not that this would provide certainty to the Bible's divine authorship, but rather that it would remove the degeneracy between differing views that offer similar results when tested through subjectivity.
By
Josh, at 3:01 AM
Well, it looks like we've fired up the engine and are blazing down one of those roads it seems only you and I can find... Anyone else reading these replies is likely just groaning on the floor in the fetal position downing tylenol for brain strain...
So, instead of sermon prep, this morning, I got thoroughly and deliciously side tracked with this candidate for the world's longest reply to a post...
Again, Josh I mostly agree. In fact I agree more and more with this line of thinking becuase of my own journey! God help me if I'm on the same path as Chuck Templeton!
Much aggravation in our history has been caused by the all too difficult to detect difference between feeling right and being right. Being is always harder. We could easily be caricatured as a race of creatures all shouting to be heard, “I’m right, I know, I’m right, I know…” You could call it belief bludgeoning. It amounts to an abuse of the concept of knowledge.
Unfortunately these effects seem to be accentuated the more ideological one’s orientations become. And even more sadly, church can become a sad litany of petty interactions with people claiming divine inspiration for ideas they are too lazy to otherwise defend – and boldly claiming hell for anyone who disagrees.
But I also think it’s slippery to externalize this and assign it to every other thought system but our own. I think it true that our own motivations deceive us – they dress themselves up in more objective garb. The temptation to bend our minds to what we want to see is almost irresistible. I think it safest to assume it’s always there.
I agree with what you have to say about flaws in the lens. We can’t ever, really, truly get out from behind all our lenses so we’re stuck in a system that can’t be checked for accuracy. Dialogue can be helpful to identify obvious errors, but again, we’re all a prisoner of those defects we can’t detect. We correct errors with errors. I think certain levels of lens defects would eventually cause a “collisions” if it’s too far out of adjustment (or “dissonance” in purely subjective areas), but again, I like what you say about how we can find a way to “process” that dissonance to preserve our idea of our lens.
I think, again, Christians are notorious for this. When circumstances align with our belief, we take it as self-evidence. When circumstances align against our belief, we take it as further proof – evidence of a fallen world – we see ourselves in apocalyptic terms – locked in a glorious battle against the very fiber of a twisted world – we dignify our resistance. When facts support, we use it, when facts detract, we switch do a different system of support.
I’ve a long and sordid history as someone trying to keep a growing intellect and a vibrant faith in step with each other. I’ve been “hoodwinked” by fundamentalists and their hyper spiritualization and anti-intellectual disposition. I’ve over reacted to that and danced very close to the beginning of the journey that leads to liberalism, ecumenism and universalism (if the credential committee only knew way back then!)
My biggest crises of faith have come only since I made a decision about Christ. In the end, I default to history. Obviously, there can be (and is) a lot of argument about this, as well. If the resurrection is embedded in history, then all other arguments are moot. If the resurrection never happened, then any alternate interpretation of Jesus and scripture are valid. In this area, everyone seems to have a different standard. How historical does something need to be? How many sources and cross references, etc? I’m satisfied that enough evidence exists that we need to give the cross a chance. I’m further satisfied that a life consistent with what was promised has emerged since that decision.
Again, by not means is any of this water tight. Indeed, if you hold to anything in the Bible, a water tight case would be contrary to God’s goals. At the end of all analysis, we have our gut. Granted, to varying degrees. Some decisions are pure gut, some hardly any at all. But there’s something to be said for this, “here are the facts, here are the uncertainties, what do you think?”
I sense you have something on a suspicion level about all this: in addition to all the evidences and patterns of deduction, etc, you’ve developed a hunch. You suspect there isn’t a divine personality just behind the skin of physics. But it is just a hunch.
This has always rested on the resurrection in history.
By
CSW, at 10:17 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home