Many theists assert that god's truth as revealed by revelation is the best way to know about the world, that it is true knowledge, etc. But, is it really? Can anyone name anything that we can say that we know and learned via revelation? For every revelation that anyone can present, there are plenty of contradictory revelations. Each of these revelations are claimed to be from a deity (sometimes contradictory revelations are claimed to be from the same deity) with no way to discern which is true and which one to believe.
On the other hand, we do have a system that works that does bring us knowledge, and that is the scientific method. Through the use of this method, we have made untold discoveries about the world around us, have learned untold numbers of facts, etc. The success rate for science is sky high; it has proven itself to be effective. So, can any theists point to anything we've actually learned from revelation?
15 comments:
Methodological naturalism is acceptable when applied without bias, and the scientific method is an excellent tool for gathering information about the world, as you pointed out.
However, neither shed much light on the nature of God specifically, or the supernatural in general. Revelation is of much more value in this regard, given of course that you accept the revelation, which I grant that you do not.
A good example of knowledge produced by revelation would be the doctrine of the trinity, one which could never be discovered via the scientific method.
"A good example of knowledge produced by revelation would be the doctrine of the trinity".
Interesting that you picked that example because 100 christians will give you 100 different explanations when attemtping to explain it (god the father, god the son, god the holy spirit doesn't cut it)
"100 christians will give you 100 different explanations"
Hyperbole, I'm sure...
Quixote,
The problem is that we have no way of verifying the trinity or anything supernatural, so in what way could we say that we have knowledge of those things? IOW, how can you claim knowledge of the trinity? What verifiable evidence do you have that god is triune? How do you know that other revelations that contradict the trinity are wrong?
"IOW, how can you claim knowledge of the trinity? What verifiable evidence do you have that god is triune?"
Absolutely I agree that you do not have to accept revelation, as stated in my first response. The evidence for the Bible, which is not convincing for you, is convincing to me, and thereby validates the revelation.
You are in excellent philosophic company in your stance, so I would never claim that you are ignorant in holding to it. Rather, I have a certain admiration for folks who stand with the evidence as they see it, depsite the ramifications.
However, setting aside the supernatural for a moment, Kant's introductory break with classic philosophy, as echoed in your OP, leads to alternate destinations, ones that though atheistic or agnostic, would probably be equally suspect in your view, yet to me are appealing in the absence of God.
Its interesting to me that in this sense you have staked out a middle ground of sorts. There's something to be said for that.
"How do you know that other revelations that contradict the trinity are wrong?"
Well, if I accept the evidence for the Bible, and not, for example, the Book of Mormon, the revelation of the Bible would be favored over competing revelatory accounts. Given this, I understand your conclusions when you reject the Bible based on your assessment of the evidence for it. We theists do the same thing all the time :)
To conclude then, if you are correct in your evaluation of the evidence, your entire last post is spot on. If not, well, there's a wealth of knowledge out there you are ignoring.
Quixote,
"The evidence for the Bible, which is not convincing for you, is convincing to me, and thereby validates the revelation."
That way leads to relativism. Facts and knowledge are not dependent on our beliefs.
"To conclude then, if you are correct in your evaluation of the evidence, your entire last post is spot on. If not, well, there's a wealth of knowledge out there you are ignoring."
The point is that we can't say that we "know" anything "gained" from revelation is true. This or that revelation may be true, but we can hardly include it in the pantheon of learned or gained knowledge, because we have no way to verify that it is true and no way to tell one competing revelation from another.
"pantheon of learned or gained knowledge"
Interesting word choice in pantheon.
Let me make sure I am getting you. It seems that you are saying we can't verify revelation by the scientific method, therefore, we can't put anything gained by it in the same category of knowledge as "water boils at 212 degrees F" (at sea level, I think).
If this is the claim, I tend to agree.
Quixote,
"It seems that you are saying we can't verify revelation by the scientific method, therefore, we can't put anything gained by it in the same category of knowledge as "water boils at 212 degrees F" (at sea level, I think)."
It's worse than that. We can't verify revelation by any method. Therefore, we can't say that revelation actually gives us any knowledge. In order to say that we "know" something, there's a certain level of certainty that simply can't be obtained through revelation.
"We can't verify revelation by any method." It is falsifiable through history/archaeology, and to the extent it agrees with this evidence, it is knowable. Predictive prophecy, a form of revelation is confirmable/falsifiable as well. Whatever is falsifiable at worst counts as theoretical knowledge.
Of course, experience can verify it, but one's experience cannot always be shared with others as proof.
"In order to say that we "know" something, there's a certain level of certainty that simply can't be obtained through revelation."
If God appeared to you right now and revealed something, you would "know" it. Or, if Christ rose from the dead, revelation from the Bible is not only knowable, but certain, based on his testimony.
Quixote,
"It is falsifiable through history/archaeology, and to the extent it agrees with this evidence, it is knowable."
How is "god said X" falsifiable in any way? Even if it is some sort of revelation that impinges on the natural world, how will you actually know that it is true or false? The answer is that you have to actually study the natural world using the scientific method. Only then can you determine what is genuine knowledge and what isn't. Revelation doesn't get you there.
"Predictive prophecy, a form of revelation is confirmable/falsifiable as well."
And yet, one can guess what might happen without it being revelation.
"Of course, experience can verify it..."
How can you know that you've experienced something supernatural, and how would you be able to tell that it was true knowledge?
"If God appeared to you right now and revealed something, you would "know" it."
No, I wouldn't. I could suspect that it was true based on god's testimony, but I would have no assurance that god was correct or honest with the information he gave me.
"Or, if Christ rose from the dead, revelation from the Bible is not only knowable, but certain, based on his testimony."
Even if Christ rose from the dead, that doesn't mean that the Bible is necessarily true or that the knowledge is gained through revelation.
Science is always changing with new theories and new research that sometimes validates the old and some times completely invalidates it. By saying that Science is preferable to revelation then you are saying that our own cognitive ability to know something is more trustworthy than someone infallible revealing knowledge to us.
Also the existence of many claims to revelation does not rule out one true revelation. The only way to counterfeit something is if a real exist by which to counterfeit. If there was no real revelation there would be no false revelation.
Karla,
"Science is always changing with new theories and new research that sometimes validates the old and some times completely invalidates it."
Yes, that is how science works and it's one of the strengths of science, that it is self-correcting in working towards a better understanding of the universe.
"By saying that Science is preferable to revelation then you are saying that our own cognitive ability to know something is more trustworthy than someone infallible revealing knowledge to us."
Even if god is talking to you, you still have to use your own cognitive ability to know what god is saying. Of course, in order to know that someone infallible is talking to you, you need some sort of evidence, which comes from where exactly?
"Also the existence of many claims to revelation does not rule out one true revelation."
No, it does not, nor did I say it did. It does, however, rule out my ability to say with any certainty that one revelation is better than another when two revelations conflict with each other. The Xian has no answer for revelations from Allah or Vishnu, just as the Muslim has no answer for revelations from Yahweh, except for counter-revelation in all cases. One simply has nothing to go from in order to evaluate which revelation is true, except if the revelation includes truth claims. Those truth claims, however, won't be known to be true until they are investigated through the scientific method, at which time the knowledge is gained.
"The only way to counterfeit something is if a real exist by which to counterfeit."
So, if I make a counterfeit Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I guess I've proven that there is a real Flying Spaghetti Monster, eh? Your assertion does not hold.
"If there was no real revelation there would be no false revelation."
Or maybe it's all real, or maybe it's all fake. You have no way of knowing.
"How is "god said X" falsifiable in any way?"
A famous faith teacher claimed that god told him a certain segment of the population would be destroyed in 1994. It didn;t happen. Charles Russel said God revealed to him that he was coming in 1914. It didn't happen. Really, you guys are falsifying this stuff all the time.
"The answer is that you have to actually study the natural world using the scientific method."
I agreed to this upfront. However, we're not talking about this world. The scientific method is useless in studying the supernatural, except for instances where the supernatural impinges on the natural world. Furthermore, it is of little value in settling historical questions that bear directly upon revelation, i.e. the resurrection.
"And yet, one can guess what might happen without it being revelation."
Not by the scientific method...
"I could suspect that it was true based on god's testimony, but I would have no assurance that god was correct or honest with the information he gave me."
Actually, I agree with this statement, but you have switched to discussing whether the revelation would be true, not whether it would be a knowledge that you possess that you formerly did not.
"Even if Christ rose from the dead, that doesn't mean that the Bible is necessarily true or that the knowledge is gained through revelation."
If he rose from the dead, it is historical validation of the Bible, which holds even by the standard of "extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim."
Quixote,
"A famous faith teacher claimed that god told him a certain segment of the population would be destroyed in 1994. It didn;t happen. Charles Russel said God revealed to him that he was coming in 1914. It didn't happen. Really, you guys are falsifying this stuff all the time."
OK, I get your meaning, and I agree. If the revelation makes empirical claims, then it can be falsified.
"However, we're not talking about this world."
What other world could we possibly be talking about with any authority?
"The scientific method is useless in studying the supernatural, except for instances where the supernatural impinges on the natural world. Furthermore, it is of little value in settling historical questions that bear directly upon revelation, i.e. the resurrection."
Of course it is useless, as is any other method that has been tried. We simply have no way of knowing that anything supernatural exists, let alone studying it.
"Not by the scientific method..."
Actually, it is in the cases where we actually have some knowledge of the events in question. I could make a blind guess that we will find X on some planet, and if we find X does that prove that I had a revelation? Would it prove that I knew it? No, I didn't have any knowledge, I simply guessed. It might have been based on previous knowledge or experience, which would be the scientific method (I would be putting forth a hypothesis of sorts).
"Actually, I agree with this statement, but you have switched to discussing whether the revelation would be true, not whether it would be a knowledge that you possess that you formerly did not."
Ah, but if it were false, you wouldn't call it knowledge, would you? And, since you can't know if it is false or not, you can't say that you "know" what was revealed to you.
"If he rose from the dead, it is historical validation of the Bible, which holds even by the standard of "extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.""
It is only validation that he rose from the dead. It does not validate anything else in the Bible.
Post a Comment