Epistemology is absolutely crucial when understanding religion. Why theism instead of deism? Why Christianity instead of Islam? Why Orthodoxy instead of Protestantism? To be frank, we need to have an epistemology.
The following is going to read like the ramblings of a college junior who has incomplete learning and an imprecise grasp on logic. For that I apologize, this is the best I can communicate my understanding of epistemology.
Ultimately, I believe truth as we know it as humans is nothing more than a subjective experience. Even methodological exactitude in empirical, dialectical, or other means of determining what is true or not is ultimately subjective. It is experiential, no matter how much we claim it is not, due to the fact it’s always contingent upon our sense perception.
For example, if I read a book, my sense of sight has come into play. Hence, what I read comes through a filter, that filter being my sense perception. Even my thoughts which perceive the data inputs of my five senses, i.e. extrapolating logic and data from that aforementioned book, are limited by the organic, neurochemical processes in my own mind.
As another example, we are well aware of the visible spectrum, because those of us who are not color-blind see the whole of it. Yet, thanks to scientific instrumentation, we are now aware of infrared and ultraviolet. Without such instrumentation, these invisible “colors” do not exist. But, more than this, it is not a matter of instrumentation, but as I alluded to before, a constitutional limitation we as men have in contemplating what we sense, through scientific instruments or otherwise. Our view of reality is always limited and always an interpretation.
Everything is reduced to subjectivity. Anyone who says otherwise has an anthropology disconnected from reality. As I perceive logic and deliberate upon its ramifications, my own perception plays a role. Ultimately my senses are sending me what is akin to data inputs and my imperfect mind gives me an imperfect and subjective view of what all these things mean.
None of this is terribly new. Solomon in Ecclesiastes, Al Ghazali in Deliverance From Error, Descartes in The Discourse on the Method, and even the movie The Matrix pretty much all observe that we in fact really do not know what is real due to human limitations. While The Matrix posits a sort of new-agey solution to the problem, Solomon and Ghazali ultimately conclude that the “truth is what you do,” instead of what one contemplates. Descartes, on the other hand, works from a more abstract principle (his thoughts even existing convey reality) and then puts forward a methodology that in effect gave birth to empiricism. But empiricism, after all, holds as its logical premise that truth is verifiable and repeatable…i.e. experienced!
As a matter of full disclosure, I have read all of the preceding men (and watched The Matrix trilogy for that matter), and aside from any brain damage resulting from watching The Matrix, it is pretty clear that my own epistemology is obviously derived from them. Ultimately, I came to a juncture in my own life when I was posed with what sounded like superior philosophy and my own experience. Ultimately, it was my experience that won out, a misology that took over my mind, and here I am today.
There are Christians that still try to hold onto the former and not justify their beliefs with the latter. These are Christians who think there are dinosaurs in the Bible, that evolutionary science is completely bunk, believe that Exodus is literal historical fact, and make beyond-tenuous arguments that the Resurrection can be proven historically. Though such people are brothers in Christ, they are seriously mistaken, and ultimately defend the Truth with lies.
Applying this to Biblical matters allows us to evaluate debates between Christians. Most Protestants, being that they have no interpretative authority (on paper) other than the Scriptures themselves, are forced to argue that the only way to know what the Scriptures are is by subjectively listening to what sounds like Scripture and what doesn’t. The Scriptures say, “The sheep hear my voice.” Obviously, this is rank subjectivism.
Orthodox will criticize this and will point to history: Anyone may look into history and see what people have always considered Scripture. Hence, the Canon of the Scripture is something that is not purely subjective, but verifiable.
But think about that for a moment. The fact of the matter is that each individual is looking into history through their own subjective lens. Further, if there appears to be a historical “consensus,” this consensus is made up of fallible men evaluating matters the only way they can–subjectively.
So, what is the difference between the Orthodox and the Protestant when it comes to epistemology in this regard? I would say in the end result there’s only one, and that, is the subjectivity of the Protestant is ultimately individualistic. Even when a Protestant employs history in coming to his judgments (i.e. “the 66 Book Bible was the Bible of the Hebrews,”) he does not submit to any authoritative view of history.
In Orthodoxy, subjectivity is communal, but this communal experience in effect is an authority which is viewed as infallible. This is why Orthodox point to more than the Scriptures, but also to Bishops, church fathers, hymns, prayers, and common practices. The experience of a community over time is in effect more compelling than that of an individual, no matter how important (i.e. Pope) or knowledgeable (i.e. a famous theologian) an individual may be.
To counter this, the Protestant asserts that he leans upon the grace of the Holy Spirit in enlightening his subjective views. Yet, the Orthodox also leans upon the Holy Spirit in the same exact way.
The difference is that the experience of the Holy Spirit and how it is subjectively perceived is verifiable within an Orthodox community that transcends a single time, culture, or area. While the Protestant can only point to his own subjective experience, the Orthodox is part of a consciousness that exists over the ages.
Ultimately, the Orthodox asserts that this historical consciousness carries with it an epistemological authority. Abstract things that are immeasurable, like beauty, are known to exist as much as laws of physics because it is a shared human experience. In the same way, the shared experience of Christians, is to the Christian, as sure as the laws of physics.
To the Orthodox, the shared experience of Christians throughout the ages is proof of the Holy Spirit’s work and therefore immense confidence is placed upon the experience of the community. Ultimately, the Protestant cannot point to this as there is no consistent strain or community within Protestantism that may be historically delineated. The work of the Spirit, in effect, appears invisible and unknown in many areas and times. So, the Protestant must place all of his confidence in the work of the Spirit in his own life and cast doubt upon other people’s experience.
To understand religious experience in isolation is spiritually hazardous. It leads to every kind of extreme and heresy. It inflates pride and creates hatred of others. It idolizes the individual which in effect replaces the true God as one’s Savior. It is this we must repent of, as every day of our lives we battle our own hearts, the idol-making factories that they are.
In closing, it is my view that our epistemology is always limited by our limited sense-perception and fallen minds. What should give us greater confidence is if we could find that our experience is both repeatable and consistent–similar to the empirical method that Descartes extrapolated during his own epistemological crisis. The experience of God’s goodness is consistent between people throughout the ages and this consistency gives us much more confidence in our own experience than understanding our religious experience in isolation.
This is all very self-contradictory, and requires one and only one objective truth: Truth is subjectivity (Kierkegaard, Concluding Scientific Postscript. But the Augustinian world view Kierkegaard and his Augustinian psychology (“The Concept of Anxiety”), has been refuted by the Orthodox Church, as in the articles “The Reign of Augustine” in Frank Schaeffer’s “The Christian Activisit” newspaper of 80s and 90s. And the book “Eternal Day” by Seth Farber (Regina Orthodox Press, Salisbury, MA). And for the Orthodox world view, we need to obtain and read (I need to find this) Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D. God, History and Dialectic. IV volumes. Joseph P. Farrell. Available from Amazon.com The Two Europes: Old Roman Christian Orthodox Catholic Europe, and New Frankish Postmodernist Rationalist Scholastic Europe (false thinkers, Charlemagne and Aquinas), formed the modern atheistic worldview, the genesis of modern postmodernism is papism and Filioque. With Charlemagne as the force behind the modern Frankish papacy. Romanides, John S. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, MASS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. God save us.
Very interesting, as usual. However we fundamentally disagree in that truth itself is objective. Jesus is or is not God, he is risen or he is not risen, he died for our sins or he did not. Our perception of truth, on the other hand, is subjective. But with God,s grace it is possible for us to discover objective truth, and , as you suggest, through the church, which presents objective truth to us. God, through the church, proposes (objectively), and man disposes (subjectively).
This line and others like it were jarring, to say the least: “Everything is reduced to subjectivity. Anyone who says otherwise has an anthropology disconnected from reality.”
As you continued though, I think you are spot on the important difference between looking out as an individual and looking out from within a community that extends through time and space, through heaven and earth.
I was just thinking of you, I’ll email you soon I have a question! In short, if reality is an illusion, the fact that it is shared betrays some sort of reality, though very obscured.
Dear Craig: After confession/repentance & baptism/chrismation, the eucharist/worthily received (hopefully), the most important thing for Orthodox Christians is believing the Filioque is a heresy of Frankish origin (arguably, after the Spanish earlier origin in Spain, 589, Toledo, later with Charlemagne, Aachen, 809), and accepting Chalcedonian Orthodox Monopatrism. Here is some information from Photios in English & Khmer for you:
Saint Photios. The mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, #1 – #5, in English & in Khmer.
One. 1. Arguments can be found, scattered here and there in many lengthy theses, of those contentious men who are holding the truth in their unrighteousness.
2. Because of your great zeal in which you love God has asked that those arguments should all be gathered into a summary and an outline: accomplishing this request, by no means, shall be unworthy of your desire, and of your godly love, if we are looked upon favorably by Divine Providence.
Two. 1. More than anything else at all, the Gospel of the LORD opposes them all like a sharp, inescapable arrow which strikes down and destroys every wild animal and fox as with a thunderbolt.
2. Which Gospel?
3. That which states that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father [John 15:26].
4. The Son Himself preaches His mystical teaching that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father [John 15:26].
5. Do you, however, even so, still keep on seeking for another Initiator into the Mysteries in order to make you perfect – in truth, to fulfill your impiety – and do you keep preaching as propaganda the myth that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son?
6. If you did not in any way at all cower when you seized the dogmas of our common Saviour, Creator and Lawgiver with such a violence which yields only unto your great insanity, what else, then, could another person with which to completely rebuke your great zeal of pure impiety?
7. If you continue to despise the holy laws and testimony of the very LORD, what godly man will not execrate your foul opinion?
8. But what else can in any way raise you up from your great fall?
9. What other method and medicine can cure and heal your mortal wound?
10. A wound which is not at all dealt by the Saviour but surely inflicted by your own self-wrought sickness, which, out of disobedience, strives to contumaciously change the holy medicine of the all-holy doctrine of the LORD into and unspeakably deadly and vicious most-venomous poison.
11. No, rather, it is a wound dealt by that sword which has been delivered unto us as a true defense against all of our enemies, a wound dealt to one who sought to desert through the battle lines and to enlist with the enemy.
12. For though you have been struck down by the two-edged sword of the Spirit, however, we cannot at all display any less love and eagerness by our common Master; and so far as arguments from that sacred strategy which arms us do rouse us unto battle, we shall not at all allow to remain unconcerned about escaping wounds.
Three. 1. For if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are produced from one and the very same cause, namely, the Father (even though the Spirit is by procession, while the Son is by begetting); and if, as this blasphemy proclaims, the Son, as well, in turn produces the Spirit, then why not, also as well, assert, then, the correlative myth, for reasons of pure consistency, that the Spirit as well produces the Son?
2. For both came forth with equal rank and honor from that cause; so if the Son, then, supplemented the function of cause for the Spirit, but not the Spirit for the Son, would not the preservation of the identity of rank and honor require that each of them serve, as well, as cause for the other?
Four. 1. If indeed, otherwise, that the Son is not separated from the ineffable simplicity of the Father, but the Spirit is ascribed to a dual cause, and as well undergoes a dual projection – will not, then, composition be the sure result?
2. Will it not then be blasphemously asserted that the equally honored Spirit is less than the Son?
3. Will not, then, the pure simplicity of the Holy Trinity have its own proper quality corroded with rust?
Five. 1. Who of our holy, renowned church fathers said in any way that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son?
2. Which council, in any way, established, and made eminent by ecumenical acknowledgement, has proclaimed it?
3. In truth, which God-called assembly of priests, and of high priests, who were surely inspired by the All-Holy Spirit, has not as well highly condemned this idea before it had even dared to appear?
4. For all of them, having been initiated into the Spirit of the Father, according to the mystagogy of the Master [John 15:26], clearly and emphatically proclaimed that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father [John 15:26].
5. And all of them, in truth, subjected all who did not believe so unto the anathema for being scorners of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; for in times past, with prophetic eyes they all foresaw this newly born godlessness, and in writings and in words and in thoughts, they all condemned it, along with all of the previous manifold apostasies and heresies.
6. Of the holy Ecumenical Councils, the holy Second Council directlytaught the holy dogma, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father; [John 15:26] and the Third Council received this tradition in succession; and the Fourth Council confirmed it; the Fifth Council was established in the same doctrine; the Sixth Council preached the same; and the Seventh Council sealed it, splendidly, with contests; in each and every Council is seen the open and clear preaching of piety, and of the holy doctrine, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father [John 15:26], not from the Son.
7. What godless herd taught you otherwise?
8. Who of all of them who contravene the holy ordinances of the Master has led you to fall down into such lawless beliefs?
Saint Photios ។ អាថ៌កំបាំងនៃព្រះវិញ្ញាណបរិសុទ្ធលេខ 1 – # 5 ជាភាសាអង់គ្លេសនិងជាភាសាខ្មែរ។
មួយ។ អាគុយម៉ង់អាចត្រូវបានរកឃើញ, កន្លែងនៅទីនោះនិងនៅទីនោះជាច្រើនដែលមានរយៈពេលវែងនៃបុរសដែលមានការជំទាស់ដែលកំពុងកាន់សេចក្ដីពិតនៅក្នុងអំពើទុច្ចរិតរបស់ពួកគេ។
2. ដោយសារតែភាពឧស្សាហ៍ដ៏ខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់របស់អ្នកដែលអ្នកស្រឡាញ់ព្រះបានសួរថាអំណះអំណាងទាំងនោះគួរតែត្រូវបានប្រមូលផ្តុំទៅជាសេចក្តីសង្ខេបនិងគ្រោង។ ការសម្រេចចិត្តនេះមិនមានន័យថាអ្នកមិនសក្ដិសមនឹងបំណងប្រាថ្នារបស់អ្នកនិងសេចក្ដីស្រឡាញ់របស់ព្រះទេប្រសិនបើ យើងត្រូវបានគេមើលទៅអនុគ្រោះដោយការផ្តល់ជំនួយដ៏ទេវភាព។
3. អ្វីដែលចែងថាព្រះវិញ្ញាណបរិសុទ្ធចេញមកពីបិតា (យ៉ូហាន 15:26) ។
ព្រះរាជបុត្រាផ្ទាល់បានអធិប្បាយសេចក្តីបង្រៀនអាថ៌កំបាំងរបស់ទ្រង់ដែលព្រះវិញ្ញាណយាងចេញពីព្រះវរបិតា [យ៉ូហាន 15:26] ។
5. តើអ្នកទោះជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយនៅតែបន្តស្វែងរកគំនិតផ្តួចផ្តើមមួយផ្សេងទៀតដើម្បីចូលទៅក្នុងអាថ៌កំបាំងដើម្បីធ្វើឱ្យអ្នកល្អឥតខ្ចោះ – ដើម្បីជាការពិតដើម្បីបំពេញភាពអយុត្តិធម៌របស់អ្នក – ហើយតើអ្នកនៅតែបន្តផ្សព្វផ្សាយជាការឃោសនារឿងព្រេងដែលព្រះវិញ្ញាណចេញមកពី កូនប្រុស?
6 ប្រសិនបើអ្នកមិនបានប្រើអំណាចអ្វីសោះនៅពេលអ្នកចាប់យកដង្វាយធួននៃព្រះអង្គសង្គ្រោះសាមគ្គីរបស់យើងអ្នកបង្កើតនិងអ្នកបង្កើតច្បាប់ដោយអំពើហិង្សាដែលផ្តល់ឱ្យតែភាពល្ងីល្ងើដ៏អស្ចារ្យរបស់អ្នកតើមានអ្វីផ្សេងទៀតដែលអ្នកផ្សេងទៀតអាចបន្ទោសទាំងស្រុង ភាពខ្នះខ្នែងដ៏អស្ចារ្យរបស់អ្នកពីភាពអាក្រក់សុទ្ធ?
7 ប្រសិនបើអ្នករាល់គ្នាបែរជាបះបោរប្រឆាំងនឹងក្រឹត្យវិន័យដ៏វិសុទ្ធហើយមិនប្រព្រឹត្តតាមក្រឹត្យវិន័យរបស់ព្រះអម្ចាស់ទេ, តើអ្នកគោរពកោតខ្លាចព្រះអម្ចាស់មិនប្រព្រឹត្តអំពើល្អឬ?
10. ការរងរបួសដែលមិនត្រូវបានដោះស្រាយដោយព្រះអង្គសង្រ្គោះនោះទេប៉ុន្តែត្រូវបានបង្កឡើងដោយការឈឺចាប់ដោយខ្លួនឯងផ្ទាល់ដែលអ្នកជំងឺដោយមិនស្តាប់បង្គាប់ខំប្រឹងបណ្តេញដង្វាយដ៏ពិសិដ្ឋនៃគោលលទ្ធិដ៏បរិសុទ្ធរបស់ព្រះអម្ចាស់ទៅជាសេចក្តីស្លាប់ដែលមិនអាចប្រាប់បាន។ និងសារធាតុពុលភាគច្រើនបំផុតដែលមានគ្រោះថ្នាក់បំផុត។
12 ទោះជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយបងប្អូនដែលទន្ទឹងរង់ចាំដោយចិត្ដវាសនារបស់ព្រះជាម្ចាស់បាននាំយើងអោយប្រព្រឹត្ដអំពើល្អចំពោះព្រះគ្រិស្ដគឺព្រះជាម្ចាស់បានធ្វើអោយយើងទៅជាវិសុទ្ធយ៉ាងហ្នឹងទៅហើយ។ ហើយរហូតមកដល់ពេលនេះការឈ្លោះប្រកែកពីយុទ្ធសាស្ត្រដ៏ពិសិដ្ឋដែលប្រដាប់ដោយអាវុធធ្វើឱ្យយើងដួលសន្លប់យើងនឹងមិនអនុញ្ញាតឱ្យនៅតែខ្វល់ខ្វាយអំពីការគេចផុតពីរបួសទេ។
បី។ ប្រសិនបើទាំងពីរព្រះបុត្រានិងព្រះវិញ្ញាណបរិសុទ្ធត្រូវបានផលិតពីបុព្វហេតុមួយនិងមូលហេតុដូចគ្នាគឺព្រះវរបិតា (ទោះបីជាព្រះវិញ្ញាណគឺដោយក្បួនដង្ហែរខណៈពេលដែលព្រះរាជបុត្រាគឺដោយ begetting) ។ ហើយប្រសិនបើជាការពោលពាក្យប្រមាថនេះបានប្រកាសព្រះរាជបុត្រាផងដែរនៅក្នុងវេនផលិតព្រះវិញ្ញាណបន្ទាប់មកហេតុអ្វីបានជាមិនក៏អះអាងផងដែរបន្ទាប់មកទេវកថាទាក់ទងគ្នាសម្រាប់ហេតុផលនៃភាពរឹងមាំសុទ្ធថាព្រះវិញ្ញាណក៏ផលិតព្រះរាជបុត្រា ?
2. ទាំងពីរបានចេញមកដោយមានឋានៈស្មើគ្នានិងកិត្តិយសពីមូលហេតុនោះ; ដូច្នេះបើបុត្រាបានបំពេញមុខងារនៃបុព្វហេតុនៃព្រះវិញ្ញាណតែមិនមែនជាព្រះវិញ្ញាណសម្រាប់ព្រះរាជបុត្រានោះទេការរក្សាអត្តសញ្ញាណនៃឋានៈនិងកិត្ដិយសតម្រូវឱ្យពួកគេម្នាក់ៗបម្រើផងដែរដែលជាបុព្វហេតុមួយទៀតសម្រាប់អ្នកដទៃ។ ?
បួន។ ប្រសិនបើដូច្នោះមែនបើមិនដូច្នោះទេព្រះបុត្រាមិនត្រូវបានបំបែកពីភាពសាមញ្ញរបស់ព្រះវរបិតាទេប៉ុន្តែព្រះវិញ្ញាណត្រូវបានចាត់ទុកថាជាបុព្វហេតុពីរហើយក៏មានការព្យាករពីរផងដែរ – នឹងមិនសមហេតុសមផលទេ។
4 ព្រោះអស់អ្នកដែលបានទទួលព្រះវិញ្ញាណបរិសុទ្ធនៃព្រះវរបិតាតាមពាក្យសំដីរបស់លោកគ្រូ [យ៉ូហាន 15:26] បានចែងយ៉ាងច្បាស់ថាព្រះវិញ្ញាណបានចេញពីព្រះបិតាមក [យ៉ូហាន 15:26] ។
5 តាមពិតពួកគេទាំងអស់គ្នាបានធ្វើខុសចំពោះអស់អ្នកដែលមិនជឿទៅលើការខកចិត្តដើម្បីធ្វើជាអ្នកមើលងាយពួកជំនុំកាតូលិកនិងសាវក។ កាលពីមុនមានភ្នែកបែបពោរពេញទៅដោយសេចក្តីទុច្ចរិតហើយនៅក្នុងសំណេរនិងក្នុងពា
6 ។ នៃក្រុមប្រឹក្សាអេឡិចត្រូនិកដ៏បរិសុទ្ធក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីពីរដ៏បរិសុទ្ធបាននិយាយពីលទ្ធិបរិសុទ្ធដែលព្រះវិញ្ញាណបរិសុទ្ធចេញមកពីព្រះវរបិតា។ [យ៉ូហាន 15:26] ហើយក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីបីបានទទួលទំនៀមទម្លាប់នេះជាបន្តបន្ទាប់។ ហើយក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីបួនបានបញ្ជាក់ពីវា។ ក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីប្រាំត្រូវបានបង្កើតឡើងនៅក្នុងគោលលទ្ធិតែមួយ។ ក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីប្រាំបីបានអធិប្បាយដូចគ្នាដែរ។ ហើយក្រុមប្រឹក្សាទីប្រាំពីរបានបោះត្រាវាយ៉ាងល្អឥតខ្ចោះដោយមានការប្រកួតប្រជែង។ នៅក្នុងក្រុមប្រឹក្សានីមួយៗត្រូវបានគេមើលឃើញពីការអធិប្បាយដ៏ច្បាស់លាស់និងច្បាស់លាស់អំពីការគោរពប្រណិប័តន៍ព្រះជាម្ចាស់និងគោលលទ្ធិដ៏បរិសុទ្ធដែលព្រះវិញ្ញាណមានព្រះបន្ទូលចេញពីព្រះវរបិតា [យ៉ូហាន 15:26] មិនមែនពីព្រះរាជបុត្រានោះទេ។
Saint Photios . athrkambang nei preahvinhnhean brisotth lekh 1 – # 5 chea pheasaeaangklesa ning chea pheasaeakhmer . muoy . akouymng ach trauv ban rk kheunh, kanleng now tinoh ning now tinoh cheachraen del mean rypel veng nei borsa del mean karchomteasa del kampoung kan sechakdeipit nowknong ampeutouchcharit robsa puokke . 2. daoysaarte pheap ussaa da khpangkhpasa robsa anak del anak sraleanh preah ban suor tha amnahamnang teangnoh kuorte trauv ban bramoul phtom tow chea sechaktei sangkheb ning krong . karosamrech chett nih min meannytha anak min sakdesam nung bamnangobrathnea robsa anak ning sechakdei sraleanh robsa preah te brasenbae yeung trauv ban ke meul tow anoukroh daoy kar phtal chomnuoy da te v pheap . pir . damnoengola leusa pi nih towtiet damnoengola robsa preahamcheasa brachheang puokvea teangoasa dauchchea pruonh mout sruoch ning pruonh del ach romlom ban haey bamphlanh krob satvaprei ning kanhchrong dauchchea ronteahbanh . 2. damnoengola na? 3. avei del chengtha preahvinhnhean brisotth chenh mk pi beta (yauhan 15:26) . preahreachbotrea phtal ban athibbeay sechaktei bangrien athrkambang robsa trong del preahvinhnhean yeang chenhpi preahvorbetea [yauhan 15:26] . 5. tae anak tohcheayeangna kadaoy nowte bant svengork koumnit phtuo ch phtae m muoy phsaengtiet daembi chaul tow knong athrkambang daembi thveu aoy anak laitakhchaoh – daembi chea karpit daembi bampenh pheap ayouttethmr robsa anak – haey tae anak nowte bant phsaapvophsaeay chea karkhosanea ruengopreng del preahvinhnhean chenh mk pi kaunobrosa? 6 brasenbae anak minban braeamnach avei saoh nowpel anak chab yk dangveay thuon nei preahangk sangkroh samokki robsa yeung anak bangkeut ning anak bangkeut chbab daoy ampeu hengsaa del phtal aoy te pheap lngilngeu da aschary robsa anak tae mean avei phsaengtiet del anak phsaengtiet ach bantosa teangosrong pheap khneahkhneng da aschary robsa anak pi pheapakrak sotth? 7 brasenbae anakrealknea bercha bahbaor brachheang nung kroetyaviny da visotth haey min braprutt tam kroetyaviny robsa preahamcheasa te, tae anak korp kaotakhlach preahamcheasa min braprutt ampeula ryy? 8. bo nde tae mean avei phsaengtiet del ach chuoy bangkeun anak pi kar duol rlom da thom robsa anak? tae vithi sa sr t phsaengtiet ning thnam avei del ach pyeabeal ning pyeabeal snamorbuosa slab robsa anak ban? 10. kar rng rbuosa del min trauv ban daohsray daoy preahangk sa ngrkoh noh te bonte trauv ban bangkolaeng daoy karchhucheab daoyokhluoneng phtal del anakchomngu daoy min stab bangkeab khambroeng b nte nh dangveay da pisedth nei kol lotthi da brisotth robsa preahamcheasa tow chea sechaktei slab del min ach brab ban . ning sarthatopoul pheakochraen bamphot del mean krohthnak bamphot . 11 phtoytowvinh kmean norna mneak trauv kech phot pi moukhdeav daoy moukhdeav del chea khmangosatrauv robsa yeung te haeyka kmean norna mneak ach rt tow ban laey . 12 tohcheayeangna kadaoy bangobaaun del tontungorngcham daoy chetd veasanea robsa preahcheamcheasa ban noam yeung aoy br pru td ampeula champoh preah krisd ku preahcheamcheasa ban thveuaoy yeung tow chea visotth yeangohnoeng tow haey . haey rhautamokadl pelnih kar chhlohbrakek pi youtthosaeastr da pisedth del bradeabdaoy avouth thveu aoy yeung duolosanlob yeung nung min anounhnhat aoy nowte khvalkhvay ampi kar kech phot pi rbuosa te . bei . brasenbae teangpir preah botra ning preahvinhnhean brisotth trauv ban phlit pi bopvoheto muoy ning moulheto dauchaknea ku preahvorbetea ( tohbeicha preahvinhnhean ku daoy kbuonodanghe r khn pel del preahreachbotrea ku daoy begetting) . haey brasenbae chea kar pol peaky bramath nih ban brakeasa preahreachbotrea phng der nowknong ven phlit preahvinhnhean banteabmk hetoaveibeanchea min ka aahang phng der banteabmk tevoktha teaktongoknea samreab hetophl nei pheaprungmoam sotth tha preahvinhnhean ka phlit preahreachbotrea ? 2. teangpir ban chenh mk daoy mean than smaekna ning ketteysa pi moulheto noh; dauchneh bae botra ban bampenh moukhngear nei bopvoheto nei preahvinhnhean te minmen chea preahvinhnhean samreab preahreachbotrea noh te kar roksaa attasanhnhean nei than ning ke tde y sa tamrouv aoy puokke mnea k bamreu phng der del chea bopvoheto muoytiet samreab anakadtei . ? buon . brasenbae dauchnaoh men baemindauchnaohte preah botra min trauv ban bambek pi pheap samonhnh robsa preahvorbetea te bonte preahvinhnhean trauv ban chattoukthea chea bopvoheto pir haeyka meankar pyeakr pir phng der – nung min samhetosamophl te . tae vea nung min trauv ban aahang daoy pol peaky bramath tha preahvinhnhean del mean ketteysa smaekna ku tech cheang preahreachbotrea te ryyei? tae samonhnh pheap brisotth nei preah trei ek da brisotth mean kounasambotte samosrab tow nung kar chreh der ryyte? bram . tae norna khleah knong kromchomnoum da lbilbanh del chea bapvochit kromchomnoum robsa yeung ban niyeay tha tamvithi na del preahvinhnhean yeang chenhpi preahreachbotrea? 2. tae kromobroeksaea na del trauv ban bangkeut laeng ning thveu aoy mean pheap lechathlo daoy kar ttuoloskal pi krobtisati ban brakeasa tha vea? 3 tampit preahcheamcheasa del mean preahchonm kngnow tang pidaem riengomk trong chhvengoyl koumnit robsa ke chb sapvokrob haey kmean norna ach brachhommoukhnung kroetyaviny ban laey . 4 proh asa anak del ban ttuol preahvinhnhean brisotth nei preahvorbetea tam peakyasaamdei robsa lokakrou [yauhan 15:26] ban cheng yeang chbasa tha preahvinhnhean ban chenhpi preahbeta mk [yauhan 15:26] . 5 tampit puokke teangoasaknea ban thveu khosa champoh asa anak del min chue towleu kar khakchett daembi thveuchea anak meulngeay puokchomnoum kataulik ning savk . kalpimoun mean phnek beb porpenh tow daoy sechaktei touchcharit haey nowknong saamner ning knong peaky sa mti ning koumnit puokke teangoasa ban thkaoltosa vea ruom cheamuoynung kar kbat chomnue ning sasanea khosachhkang .
6 . nei kromobroeksaea elechatraunik da brisotth kromobroeksaea tipir da brisotth ban niyeay pi lotthi brisotth del preahvinhnhean brisotth chenh mk pi preahvorbetea . [yauhan 15:26] haey kromobroeksaea tibei ban ttuol tomniemotomleab nih cheabantobanteab . haey kromobroeksaea ti buon ban banhcheak pi vea . kromobroeksaea ti bram trauv ban bangkeut laeng nowknong kol lotthi temuoy . kromobroeksaea ti brabei ban athibbeay dauchaknea der . haey kromobroeksaea ti brapir ban baohtra vea yeang laitakhchaoh daoy mean karobrakuot bracheng . nowknong kromobroeksaea ni muoy trauv ban ke meulkheunh pi karoathibbeay da chbasaleasa ning chbasaleasa ampi karkorp branebt preahcheamcheasa ning kol lotthi da brisotth del preahvinhnhean mean preahbantoul chenhpi preahvorbetea [yauhan 15:26] minmen pi preahreachbotrea noh te . tae hvaung mnoussa del kmean chomnue ban bangrien anak yeangna te? 8. tae anaknea knongchamnaom puokke del brachheang nung pithi brisotth nei lokakrou ban noam anak aoy thleak chaul knong chomnue min srabac
I presume you use google translate?
Yes. I use google translate.
I think Craig is making a distinction here (or maybe not?). Craig doesn’t claim that there isn’t objective truth from what I read, what he says his represented in his statement, ” I believe truth as we know it as humans is nothing more than a subjective experience.” The nuance of Craig’s message is “truth as we know it.” For example, if we use Aristotle’s Laws of Non-Contradiction, we could easily see that the idea that “there is no objective truth” is a self-refuting statement. However, this isn’t what Craig states that there is no objective truth. Now, even in the Catholic tradition, John Henry Newman wrote a thesis called the “Assent of Grammar,” which Newman more or less lays out that almost all knowledge is known by empirical evidence but rather an assent of “faith,” or rather, “trust.”
Nonetheless, I think Water is correct to the degree that the distinction must be made between what we can know as truth by acquiring data via senses on all intelligible things and the possible error of judgment. Naturally, the scientific method and the repetition of producing the same results would ultimately fail repeatedly if the truth was truly subjective and the repetition of the same results has nothing to do with the perception of truth by Humans, only the interpretation of the data and the error of judgment.
Interesting comment. I would say the sense of a community belies an objective truth, even if the understanding of this truth by each individual is subjective.
I found this interesting: “Now, even in the Catholic tradition, John Henry Newman wrote a thesis called the “Assent of Grammar,” which Newman more or less lays out that almost all knowledge is known by empirical evidence but rather an assent of “faith,” or rather, “trust.””
It reminds me of Augustine in the Confessions. I think Book VI or VII talks about the nature of faith, and Augustine comes to the view that faith is reasonable. His example was that he does not remember being born, but he takes it on good authority that his parents are in fact his parents. In the same way, the Scriptures themselves may be cryptic at points, but whenever tested and scrutinized, they are always found to be true. From this, he deduces, to have faith in the whole of Christian teaching is reasonable.
Everything in effect requires a degree of faith…some much less than others (i.e. I am pretty darn sure the sun will rise tomorrow and I don’t need much of a knowledge of science to have that confidence…but still, how can I be totally sure, right?)
So, the a communal experiential grasp on the divine appears to me to be more reasonable that an individual one, just like a scientific poll with 1000 respondents is more accurate than 5 respondents (or 1 for that matter).
However, we cannot divorce experience from any of this. Ultimately, my Christianity is contingent upon an experience of God…what gives me more confidence is that I am not the only one, and that this experience is consistent and repeatable…like an experiment in a laboratory!
It should read “is not known by empirical evidence.” Excuse the typo but it appears you understood my point. Newman, naturally, was arguing the Uber skepticism that was beginning to spread like wildfire. He used examples like “How do you know your mother is your mother?” You don’t have memories of your birth. Or, How do you know England is an Island? Have you taken a boat all the way around the island? It means we have “faith” and “trust” in the overall communal experience as you seem to hint at the “communal.” However, even in the communal, it is not subjective because there is a self correction by the community when there is error. For example, if I trust the cartographer’s map to take me to the next town; it doesn’t get me there and doesn’t get the next guy there. Well, we’ll stop using that guys maps or stop trusting cartography all together.
Perhaps, there should be a distinction within the epistemology between the metaphysical and material. Naturally, this further fleshes out Water’s comment because the resurrection breaks into the physical realm, this is why Jesus called Thomas to touch him.
It reminds me of this line from one of the saints in the Roman Calendar today: “All things that are known are known not from themselves, but from the nature of the comprehender.” (St. Severinus Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae, V,vi,2-3) God is the only One Who knows things as they are in themselves–He is the One Who knows things objectively. We know things (and we really do know things), but only according to our finite natures.
“Everything is reduced to subjectivity.” This is self-referentially inconsistent, since it is asserted as absolute objective truth.
“Anyone who says otherwise has an anthropology disconnected from reality.” It take it you mean objective reality. (If not, then it is unclear what you mean. Would you mean disconnected from one’s own private, subjective “reality”?) But if so, this assertion is bizarre and ironic, since it implies that only a radically *subjectivist* anthropology is connected to *objective* reality, which in turn implies that radical subjectivism is false!
It is true (objectively!) that we all have cognitive biases and limitations as a result of fallen human nature. But radical subjectivism, i.e., the thesis that objective human cognition is *absolutely impossible*, simply doesn’t follow from this.
AE, I am humbled you have read my writings close enough to detect an inconsistency in my own thought over time! I don’t think there is, so let me explain:
I wrote on 12/16/16: “Without objective truths, there isn’t any truth. Morals cannot exist, nor can science, or philosophy. If nothing is true, then even saying one side is right and another is wrong is an exercise in futility.”
To make clear, I affirm now as I do then that there are objective religious truths and objective truths in general. In fact, the article you are responding to is trying to offer an answer to the question as to how we derive objective truths when we, ourselves, are subjective beings and dont have objective means to understand truths.
For one, there’s the necessity of admitting there is a reality…something transgenderism ignores in saying people determine their own. Reality is outside the individual and exists regardless whether the individual understands it.
Further, the epistemology the article defends is that truth is experiential. So, this uphold empiricism, but also mass subjectivity (if people all experience the same thing, there must be something to the experience.) The problem in both of these is interpretation. This, we must concede, is always flawed. However, an interpretation that transcends time and space gives us the greatest sense of assurance that our own personal interpretation is not in error.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply!
P.S. I find this shift in your thinking to be curious. I think your 12/16/16 post “The Anti-Intellectualism of Modern Secularism,” which affirms the possibility and importance of attaining objective truth, to be much closer to the truth.
July 31, 2020 at 5:25 am
I believe, Augustine was trying to be an “mere Christian”, to borrow an anachronistic phrase from Anglican apologist for Christianity C.S. Lewis. He is not a full Roman Catholic in the post Pope Nicholas I (867 AD) sense, nor is he fully in line philosophically or theologically with Basil the Great, Athanasius the Great, Gregory Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, John Damascene, but he is not heterodox in major ways; where he speaks theologoumena, he is not defining infallible anathema maranatha Christian dogma which must be believed “or else”; he is merely thinking out loud, to try and defend Christ and the Trinity, and not dogmatize what must be believed de fide orthodoxa for all time: he is making use of Greek and Latin philosophical tools to defend orthodox theological positions. Well, anyway, that is what I think, not what I know. What I know is limited. Craig Truglia, you seem to be much more well-read in a variety of patristics : the church fathers, theology and philosophy and soteriological controversy, controversies, and a bit more engaged in Eastern Orthodox and Western Reformed/Calvinist interaction and controversy, a bit more of Calvin than Luther,Melachthon, Knox, Wesley, Cranmer, or, heaven help us, King Henry VIII, or James Arminius of Francis A. Schaeffer for that matter. Or Billy Graham. Enough said. Anyway, and who wpuld have a serious post about comparing an Eastern Orthodox Father to, say, Jimmy Swaggart. (1987). Straight Answers to Tough Questions. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt. Publishers. Or could you study and from an Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonian theological view on Bible prophecy and Christian eschatology, see: Lindsey, Hal. (1971). The Late Great Planet Earth. New York: Bantam Books. Or venture into. Wilkerson, David. (1974). The Vision. Old Tappan, NJ: Spire Books. Wilkerson, David. (1976). Racing Toward Judgment: the Sequel to The Vision. New York: Pillar Books. And in any case, these are old things to me. More pertinent, in my variety of ecumenical Christian reading, Catholicism on purgatory and personal vices, personal sin, such relevant books: John Michael Talbot. (1986). The Fire of God. Berryville, AR: Troubadour For the Lord/New York: Crossroad. I have learned all I know about Reformed and Protestant departure from Greek Orthodoxy in: Schaeffer, Frank. (1994). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religions. Brooline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Schaeffer, Frank. (2003). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith In the Age of False Religions, Salisbury, Massachusetts: Regina Orthodox Press. But in summary, Craig Truglia, if you have time, and wish to study this book thoroughly, and prayerfully (may the All-Holy Blessed Eternal Holy Spirit Who proceedeth from the Father Alone (John 15:26) guide you into all the truth (John 16:!3) about this Greek Orthodox Christian book: If you could do us a favor and hone your keen reading and scholarly skills and your heart, give your heart and mind to Christ in studying and explaining to us your perspective on: Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery. translators. Rev. Fr. Doctor Michael Azkoul, Ph.D. Boston, Massachusetts: Studion Publishers, Incorpprated. God bless and save you and save us all, my brothers and sisters in Christ, preserve you life and health and keep you from corona plague: God save and heal us all God bless us everyone: LORD have mercy. Amen. In Erie PA See my web site; Scott Robert Harrington WordPress.com Saint Andrew of Valaam Association. Take care. God bless. God bless America. Amen.