www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Romans 5:19

There are different ways something can be anthropocentric. It could be aruged that the created universe is anthropocentric. I meant the understanding of truth beyond natural human wisdom, such as any of the mysteries, as with the Trinity, the Assumption of Mary, or with the Resurrection of Christ, is not anthropocentric in its 'way of knowing'.

Personally, I would restate this a bit: "truth is exclusively substantiated through observation and material evidence; and therein lies the conflict."

Christians do not deny the value of science qua Christians. If a conflict arises it is because Revelation, strictly speaking, cannot be materially or historically verified: the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a Christian dogma which has never been formally defined, but Christians who comprehend what the proposition means (through their minds, intellects), profess it to be true.

It's not my reduction of what truth is, it's the basic measure of how we ascribe "truth" to something. We don't consider premise without facts to be truth, that would either be a postulate or axiom. There is nothing in my opinion reasonable about faith, and no "reasonable" arguments for it that I've read. The faith I have I would say stands in contrast to any reason I have.

Where the Enlightenment fell short is probably the idea that human reason could be perfected. We know that is not true.

All faith and any understanding of truth I would say is anthroprocentic and ultimately subjective.


So when theologians come up with different or conflicting answers how do you ascertain who had the faulty experience?


Here I do believe you're wrong. Theology was once described as the "Queen of Sciences", and was the primary mechanism for explaining the natural world. The idea that science and religion occupy different spheres I think is a modern (and faulty) notion. Actually believing that in some ways I think has shown the Enlightenment has won the day because we view them in different lights. Universities also grew out of monastic institutions where the primary subject was theology.


I agree.


Theology to me is primarily the means to express the nature of the relationship of the creator to creation. Where theology is not obscure, I would say is due to its political implications.

The Eastern approach to theology is very different than the Western approach to philosophy. It would be invalid to say "they are wrong" and "this is right" because there is a disagreement of terms.

From the Western point of view, correct me if I'm wrong, the apex of Eastern theology is close to the spiritual ecstasy of a mystical union with God as explain by St. John of the Cross.

Then why are you even here, sir ? Why bother ?

Faith in the divine revelation of Jesus Christ is axiomatic to Christianity. It is the very basis of the religion. It is also the very basis of Christian theology.

Yet, you seem to be making the same suppostion over and over agin: that faith must be logically provable. No, it doesn't. Faith is the premise; the logic then follows.

Furthermore, you seem to expect there to be some kind of universality of opinion about God . . . like scientific conclusions . . . but theology doesn't work that way. God is infinite; the human mind is finite; and God's nature (unlike much of the rest of nature) is not physical. So, therefore, God isn't subject to scientific, controlled, repeatable experimentation.

Instead, in trying to understand God, we have to work with human experience (which is highly variable among individuals) and our faith in what is axiomatic (which varies from religion to religion).

Religion is not scientific.

Religion is based on belief in a higher order of reality than we can apprehend by our senses and than we can fully describe by our intellect. Is this so hard to accept?

Love isn't proved or disproved by the mind or by attempts to set up a host of rules. Love is proved or disproved by the goodness we experience of the one who loves us and our reply in turn. The penultimate example is God's love for us in the Person of Jesus Christ and the return He asks of us to make, freely, to Himself and to the neighbor. And that, in brief, is the entire point of Christianity.

-- John

John,

I think that you might be on to something here. I've been thinking that the principle reason for modernity's rejection of revealed religion is that modernity has only allowed pure reason (reason in its speculative, theoretical use) to adjudicate in the court of truth. But, Practical Reason, and aesthetic reason, are always valid and necessary uses of reason for human beings. The kind of knowledge of love that we are talking about can't be deduced by logic nor can it be described through the empirical sciences. Rather, it is something that the person grasps intuitively through his apprehension of what is good and beautiful. To scientific, theoretical reason, what is good and what is beautiful will always appear to be subjective and arbitrary because judgments about the good and beautiful are not based on scientific use of reason. One must have faith that our judgments about good and beautiful things, like love, are valid judgments and the proof can only be subjective, in the sense that love shows itself to be true over experience. Religious faith must be like that. Religious faith must be analogous to the kind of faith that a man and woman have in each other in marriage. I love my wife and I have faith that she loves me and that our love is real. Can I prove that my loves me? No. Can I prove that I love her? No. But I can be nearly certain that our love is real. It is, of course, possible that we could be wrong, but our experience makes that possibility remote. The same I suggest is true of religious faith. I have faith that God exists, that Christ has risen from the dead, and that the Church has faithfully preserved the authentic tradition that communicates Christ to us down to this day. I could be wrong. It is possible. But, unless something tremendously significant occurs to shake my faith, then I will go on having faith until it is proven that I am a fool.

But, the very fact that I realize that it is possible that I could be wrong and that I can never objectively prove the truth of my faith to another also leads me to be more tolerant and understanding of those who do not believe and who come to see the world in a very different light.

Joe

The desire to believe.


Agreed, but in Christian theology it is not simply stated as a matter of fact. It has a logical construct behind it to explain how this is a true proposition. The topic of the thread is part of that. It is in unwinding these layers that the simple axiom becomes not so simple.


I don't believe faith must be logically provable, nor do I actually believe that is even possible. I think the issue is what does one put their faith in and to what extent. I have faith there is an objective reality beyond our comprehension, which itself is a leap. Beyond that, I think things get sketchy, and the more things one must take on faith I think my confidence simply diminishes rapidly.


If theology is the direct experience of God, then my questions stands, how do we account for the conflicting theological and religious viewpoints and discern which is true and which isn't.


Which certainly makes the idea of truth an elusive proposition.


In its own way, it is. It is the layers added to this that become increasingly difficult to accept.


Where you use the word "rules", I would substitute the word "dogma", and I agree with you. The second part is not limited to any system of faith. It is a shared component of humanity.

Beautifully said, Joe ! And far better than I could have expressed it. Thank you.

-- John

I am humbled by your answer. Thank you.





Bob put it quite well a few posts before. Our faith, as Christians, is in a person -- not just in an idea. Somehow, someway, unworthy and unholy as we are, we have all encountered the same Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. We have met the same Man, and He has changed our lives.

The differences in our descriptions are also the beauty of our individual encounters and journeys of discovery.




Well said, and understandable. Everyone faces that hurdle, sooner or later, and we each have our testimonial to give. This is why I emphasized the importance of individual experience and I think Joe did too for this reason: it's ultimately the only thing we have to go on. The trick (at least it has been for me and others who have been in this situation) is to accept and to be critically aware that our reason (and every other faculty) is limited. In other words, faith is not just assent of the intellect; it is also a choice. Belief is sometimes an act of intellect, and it is sometimes an act of trust. Faith --as in "I believe in you"-- can be the precursor to (and the maintenance of) love.




The Hindus have a good metaphor for our limited attempts to describe infinity. Seven blind men are told to describe an elephant. One feels the trunk, another a tusk, another an ear, another a leg, and so on. Each is asked to give his impression of the elephant. Each reports something very different from the others. Each is accurate but incomplete because that which they sought to investigate was far larger than their capacity to sense. And so it is, but to a much greater extent, when the limited minds of human beings try to grasp and comprehend the infinity of God.

Happily, as Christians, we believe that God solved that problem for us . . . by showing up in the Person of Jesus Christ. In Him the fullness of Truth betides. Hence, we can know Truth by knowing Him. This "knowing" will never end, not here nor hereafter, but it can begin and grow greatly during this human lifetime.





I can agree to both of your points. Joe addressed the point about love much better than I ever could, and I defer to his post.

Be well. And I am honored (and I'm sure the others here are too) that you would allow me to participate in your journey of faith through this dialogue.

-- John

Joe:

Well said. May I offer something further?

For the believer, there are always signs that he recognizes as the Hand of Divine Providence actively engaged in his life. There are the "proofs" that he has to let him know that he is not wrong; that he is engaged in a relationship with Someone far greater than himself. The One Who has covenanted to be our partner in pilgrimage.

At least that has been my own experience. At so many points in my life when people have asked how I'd dodged some calamity and marveled at my "luck," I simply have replied that "luck" is Old English for "look" and God has been actively "looking" after me.

In Christ,

BOB

Trivia: "Good Luck" is part of an Old English blessing--"May God look after you."

Bob, I often feel the same thing myself. I firmly believe in God and in divine providence. I realize though that this is something that can't be proved and that it is always possible for someone else to say, "you are just being subjective." God bless.

Joe

Joe:

As long as the Divine Subject is looking after me, what do I care if someone who just "doesn't get it" takes a pot shot at me? Faith, for me, is a leap off a cliff with no turning back. I leapt at six and have never regretted falling into the Hands of Divine Providence. "Catch me, DAD!!!"

You did edify me with your post.

BOB

John, I agree. I'm coming to the realization that I can't put faith in much else beyond that. Not an infallible Bible, and not an infallible church. Just the person alone.

That is an enormous step.

Now, you have another task before you. You have to determine for yourself who this Person called Jesus truly is.

Some believe He was purely a myth.

Others acknoweldge that He lived, but they have divergent views of Him. Some hold Him to be a great moral teacher. Others see Him as the Western equivalent of the Buddha or Krishna. Others do not know.

But, some view Him as fully human and fully God, the new Adam who became and remains the savior of the world, the Christ. And He Himself asked, "Who do you say that I am?"

-- John

John:

So well put. ISTM that this is the question that each believer must ask himself and answer. And it is not, IMHO, something one does today and then proceeds through life assuming that this is enough. ISTM that this question must be answered every day and in every action, thought, and word. We proclaim Who He is by who we are IN HIM.

In Christ,

BOB