The definitions of words is always a problem for me. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a male and a female (with more verbiage behind that) and now we've shifted it. Love meant devotion with attendant emotion and now it means sexual relations. Gay meant happy and now ... well, you see how this is going. As I've always seen, communication is tenuous at best, and the constantly shifting vagaries of language don't make that task any easier.
In the recent discussion over Paul's Moral Relativism, the notion of "opinions" was up for debate. What constitutes "opinion" versus "truth"? It has been suggested that the difference (in this dialog) is between the "essentials" and the "non-essentials". And that would seem to be pretty acceptable ... until you begin to ask the question about defining "essentials". Sigh. And now we're back to the shifting sands of definitions.
Awhile back I did a series on what I believed to be "the essentials". But, of course, the question is "To what are they essential?" I mean, we can all find our dictionaries and figure out what "essential" actually means. It refers to a basic ingredient, an integral part, something that is part of the essence of something, something without which that thing would not be what it is. So, when I did the series, I referenced things that were essential to Christianity, things that made Christianity what it is. Without those things that I listed, Christianity would not be what it is. "But," the argument would come, "are you saying that these things are essential to salvation?" And now you see the problem. Essential to what? In that series, I pointed out that the things that were essential to Christianity were not necessarily essential to salvation. That is, you didn't have to believe all those things to get saved. And that just seemed to make the waters murky.
Beyond salvation, my list was not acceptable as "essential to Christianity". And we're further into hazy definitions. What makes Christianity what it is? Some would have us believe that Christianity is essentially a moral and social enterprise to be good to people. On the other side of the road there are those who would have us believe that Christianity is, in its essence, being different than everyone else. You know, thou shalt not cuss and thou shalt not smoke and thou shalt not swim in mixed male-female company. (Seriously, I've seen this before.) There are those that would argue that Christianity is purely a single moment in time in which you "place your faith in Christ" -- end of story. No fruit, no action, no response. "What are you, a legalist?" (Seriously, I know some of these.) And while one might think that "the essentials" would be a simple matter, we're mired instead in a big mud hole like the blind horse from De Camptown Races.
After awhile you realize that, rather than clarifying definitions, clearing up questions, and dividing between "opinion" and "truth", we're not likely to get out of this endless loop anytime soon. So, is there an answer? Yes, indeed. There is truth. There is absolute truth. And I'll go farther and say that we can know absolute truth. What is lacking -- will never be -- is proof. Proof is evidence or argument that establishes something as fact. Since humans suffer from a queer sort of condition called "suppression of truth" and all need to undergo extensive treatment referred to as "renewing the mind", proof will not exist. When we can cleanly and quickly say quite simply, "I don't accept your argument or evidence", the notion of proof is eliminated. And considering that a large part of our world is blinded by the god of this world, I would think that this wouldn't be uncommon. But just because evidence and argument is ignored doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. You can know the truth. That's the Holy Spirit's job, isn't it?
10 comments:
Stan, can I ask you a line of questions? Where you said...
There is truth. There is absolute truth.
And I'll go farther and say that we can know absolute truth...
What is lacking -- will never be -- is proof. Proof is evidence or argument that establishes something as fact...
When we can cleanly and quickly say quite simply, "I don't accept your argument or evidence", the notion of proof is eliminated.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. If "proof" is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact" and "something that induces certainty or establishes validity" and someone is offering as "evidence" a SUBJECTIVE point (ie, IT IS MY FEELING - MY OPINION - that X means 1, 2 and 3...) and someone does not find that subjective point a compelling argument, there IS no proof there, just one person offering an opinion. That's just a reality, right? I'm not sure what the problem is there.
So, where you say, 'we can know absolute truth," (a point with which I agree, as long as we don't say we can OBJECTIVELY KNOW WITH NO FEAR OF BEING WRONG), would you also agree, but we can't objectively "prove" that our hunches about ANY interpretation of ANY passage in the Bible are objectively true?
That is, while we can prove that there either was or wasn't factually a nation of Israel that existed at a certain point in history, we can't "prove" in any objective sense at all that a story about Israel (that there was a fella named Jonah who was swalowed by a "great fish" and survived and preached in Ninevah), short of finding some physical evidence - is that something you can affirm?
Further, we are even LESS able to prove in ANY objective sense at all that God likes or doesn't like marriage between gay folk, pollution, war or swiss cheese - can you affirm that?
And if so, can we agree that these OPINIONS about INTERPRETATIONS ARE subjective in nature, not objective? And while, we may find some interpretations more or less compelling - and while we may ONE DAY find out THE ONE TRUE ANSWER to these interpretations and opinions - ARE OUR subjective opinions, not "provable" in any logical sense?
This echo's some thoughts I was having last night. I was/am trying to figure out what makes marriage marriage. What is the essence of marriage? What is it about the marriage relationship that God chose it as the example for our relationship with Him? Is marriage good? It it always good?
No answers, just more questions. Might be a blog post at some point.
Good thoughts though.
Dan Trabue: "... is that something you can affirm?"
No, but not for the reason you might think. I wrote "What is lacking -- will never be -- is proof." That's because (as I indicated in the essay) I don't believe that "proof" exists. You, for instance, say "we can prove that there either was or wasn't factuall a nation of Israel that existed ..." I would say that if someone is unwilling to accept your evidence, there is no proof. Take, for instance, the fact of the Holocaust. There is overwhelming evidence. There is overwhelming consensus. Yet you'll find older Germans (I've spoken to them) and people like the president of Iran who claim that no such event occurred. While the evidence would appear to be indisputable, any human being at any time may choose to simply say, "I don't accept your evidence." The problem, then, is not that no evidence exists or no coherent argument exists or even that it's subjective. The problem is that humans suffer from the "suppression of truth" (Paul's words).
Since being convinced is entirely up to the individual and accepting the evidence is entirely up to the individual, I don't believe in "proof" in any final sense. I could provide copious evidence that homosexual behavior is a sin (tell you what ... let's go with "God doesn't like green cheese"), as an example, but those who are unwilling to accept that evidence will be unwilling to accept the conclusion. However -- and here was my point -- if indeed God didn't like green cheese and I made that claim and was correct, it could correctly be said that 1) God's distaste of green cheese was absolute truth and 2) I knew that truth. Proof -- whether or not you or anyone else accepted the evidence I may or may not have -- would be irrelevant.
But, bottom line, since humans are able and even willing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and ungodliness, I won't be basing my beliefs on "proof". On the other hand, if all I have is "opinion", "interpretation", and "subjective truth", I'd pretty much need to keep my mouth shut. Since the Bible says otherwise, I have a problem with that view. Nor am I doing anyone any favors in keeping silent on what I see in the Word in favor of "humility" and "grace" and "tolerance".
Thank you for the answers. I'm not sure that I agree, though (surprise!)
Where you say...
I don't believe that "proof" exists... I would say that if someone is unwilling to accept your evidence, there is no proof.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that, for someone unwilling to accept the evidence, proof may or may not exist, but they are choosing to ignore the proof/the evidence.
I think I am using Proof and Evidence almost interchangeably. Indeed, the MW definition of evidence is "something that furnishes proof."
Now, if someone chooses to IGNORE the evidence, then they may not SEE the proof, but that does not mean the evidence and/or proof isn't there.
What do you think?
And where you say...
I could provide copious evidence that homosexual behavior is a sin
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that you could provide much SUBJECTIVE OPINION that homosexual behavior is a sin, but no real objective evidence?
Can you provide ANY objective "evidence" (in the English usage of the word) that marriage between gay folk is bad? I don't think you can. I'm certain of it, in fact.
Can I provide any OBJECTIVE evidence that God opposes Christians going to war? No, I can't.
I think it more accurate to say that, for me in talking with Christians who accept the Bible as God's Word, I could provide a COMPELLING CASE as to why God might be opposed to Christians warring, but I CAN NOT - no matter how much I believe it to be true - provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that God is opposed to Christians warring. Similarly, you CAN NOT provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that God opposes gay folk marrying.
Wouldn't that be a more accurate way of looking at things? Admitting that our positions are not objectively provable in this world, but that for now, they are OUR subjective opinions?
Stan...
On the other hand, if all I have is "opinion", "interpretation", and "subjective truth", I'd pretty much need to keep my mouth shut.
GIVEN THAT ALL SIDES in a discussion on Topic X are prayerfully seeking God's will and the guidance of the HS, what else do you have that makes your "side" MORE than opinion and interpretation and subjective?
Given that on many of these topics, all we have IS our subjective opinions, perhaps we'd all do well to keep our mouths shut a bit more? On THAT point, I'd agree, if you went there. It appears, though, that you want to say that our opinions ARE subjective and not provable, BUT THAT YOU have "objective evidence" and thus, your positions are unopposably correct.
Well, I suppose if you choose to use "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably, there's no wonder you'd disagree. Of course, the definition I offered ("Proof is evidence or argument that establishes something as fact.") becomes somewhat foolish, doesn't it? "Proof is the proof that establishes something." Or, in your MW version, "Evidence is something that furnishes evidence." They are not, in my mind (or in rational thought) interchangeable. They are related, but not interchangeable. And this becomes important in things like Apologetics when skeptics claim "You have no proof of the existence of God" by asserting "There is no evidence for the existence of God." Nonsense! There is lots of evidence. They just don't accept it. No proof? I'll buy that.
And now you've decided to qualify "evidence". There is "objective evidence" which is, as I understand you, "proof", and "subjective evidence" which, in the final analysis, is useless ... opinion, hunch, purely personal perspective, no bearing on anyone else. You will break these things down further. While I simply list "evidence", you will break out "objective" and "subjective" evidence as well as "logical argument" and "interpretation". Here's the thing. I don't think these distinctions are reasonable. For instance, when the Bible says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman," you do not see that as "objective evidence" of a moral position on the topic. I see it as clear evidence. So what is "objective evidence" to me is "subjective evidence" to you. (Don't get hung up on the topic. I'm simply pointing out that each person will likely label evidence as "objective", "subjective", or some further distinction.) And then we end up back where you started. Everything, in the final perspective, is opinion. You have yours. I have mine. We can know nothing. And since all we have is "opinion" or "hunch", it is best to just keep our mouths shut about it.
Imagine, then, if we're on a desert hike here in Arizona and I "believe" that you're about to step on a rattlesnake but only have my "opinion" or "hunch" to go on there. I would guess that you would prefer I be less "gracious" and more vocal on that one. Why? It's merely my understanding of the information I have available and, look, you have the same information available to you and you don't see it, so I'd be much nicer if I just stayed silent, right?
One other bottom-line point. You argued before that Paul told us not to contend over matters of opinion and went on to repeatedly assure us that opinion is about all we have, biblically. Isn't it a violation of your own personal perspective to continue to contend about opinion?
Stan...
Isn't it a violation of your own personal perspective to continue to contend about opinion?
I've answered this line of questions a few times. If I were arguing in a negative, authoritarian and/or contentious manner, yes, it would be.
But ENGAGING IN BIBLE STUDY and offering differing opinions and ideas in the process of meditating and reasoning together on God's Word is NOT contentious or argumentative. It's Bible study.
And bible study, I think, is a wonderful thing to do.
Stan...
Here's the thing. I don't think these distinctions are reasonable. For instance, when the Bible says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman," you do not see that as "objective evidence" of a moral position on the topic.
In WHAT sense is your evidence for that topic (ANY topic) "objective?" I'm speaking of Objective in the fairly standard English definition as found in MW...
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition
in the realm of sensible experience
independent of individual thought
and perceptible by all observers
YOUR HUNCH about God's opinion about Behavior X is NOT 1. In the realm of sensible experience, 2. independent of individual thought or 3. perceptible by all observers.
This is not intended to be an offensive or doubting question, just an attempt to get you to clarify: In what possible sense are ANY of your opinions about what God wants us to do (or not do) "ojbective?"
No, Dan, none of my opinions are "ojbective" (since I can't find the word in the dictionary). (Sorry. Struck me as funny.) (Sorry, my line struck me as funny, not your typo.)
Okay, so all this is not "contentious" to you, so you are not "contending over opinion". Interesting.
I'm fascinated by this notion of "objective" as "independent of individual thought" and, further, as if it's a real thing. Everything is subject to individual thought. And despite those things that are apparently "perceptible by all observers", we can still find "flat-earthers" out there. Of course, "sensible experience" is its own problem, isn't it? I mean, my wife says, "Do you smell that?" and I say, "No" and, therefore, it isn't objective, right? So, YOUR HUNCH that the Earth is round is merely your hunch because there are those who will certainly disagree with you and MY HUNCH that we really did go to the Moon is really just an opinion since there are lots of "moon landing conspiracy theorists" out there. So just because I can point out the texts and the contexts and the consistent interpretation of those texts within the language and the context doesn't make it any more than my "hunch". Thus, you define all of the views I hold that are different than yours as "hunches" simply because you reject the evidence I offer.
Are any of my views "opinion", "subjective", "hunches"? Yes, absolutely. Those would be the host of things about which I'm not willing to contend. Those would be thing things in which there is lack of clarity or certainty in my reading of the texts and contexts. Those would be the hills on which I'm not willing to die, so to speak.
The difference between the two of us (on this topic) is that I believe that you can know the truth (indeed, "shall"), and you don't.
Stan...
Okay, so all this is not "contentious" to you, so you are not "contending over opinion". Interesting.
Well, there are moments where some of us move to contentiousness, but in general, NO, I don't find this contentious - at least not in MY heart and motivations. I'm just studying the Bible and striving to understand your position and clarify my position. Bible study.
Stan...
Everything is subject to individual thought.
Yes, but not everything is measurable, perceivable and/or observable. Someone may SAY, "But I don't see an elephant in the room," but others could touch it, smell it, SEE it. It is objectively there. That someone's sensations are off (maybe he's blind?) does not mean the phenomena is not objectively testable/confirmable.
Stan...
So just because I can point out the texts and the contexts and the consistent interpretation of those texts within the language and the context doesn't make it any more than my "hunch".
If your position is, "God supports X" and your evidence is, "Here are these verses which I take to mean X. Here are the original Hebrew/Greek meanings of the words in these passages, which supports (I say) my conclusion of X. Other people have also taken it to mean X. Thus God supports X..."
THIS is not an objective conclusion. Now, you may well argue that "I think behavior X is bad. I think this because the Bible says... and because this happens in the real world... and because people in the past thought X was bad..." and you can make an objective case that this is your opinion, but what you CAN'T objectively demonstrate is that GOD thinks X is bad. You could only do that if you could objectively demonstrate God's opposition to X, and YOU CAN'T do that. Not currently (maybe one day when the veil is removed...)
Stan...
Thus, you define all of the views I hold that are different than yours as "hunches" simply because you reject the evidence I offer.
NOT because I reject the evidence, but because I don't find your subjective evidence compelling. Do you see the difference?
Stan...
Are any of my views "opinion", "subjective", "hunches"? Yes, absolutely.
In this paragraph, you are suggesting that besides your views that ARE subjective, that you hold SOME views about what God's opinion is on Topic X that are NOT subjective, but rather, are OBJECTIVE. If so, just offer the OBJECTIVE evidence and clarify it. But you can't do this (NONE of us can on these questions). Not by the standard English definition of the word Objective.
Are you using some other definition? I'm not clear why this is even a question for anyone. We CAN'T OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRATE USING OUR MEASURABLE, PERCEIVABLE SENSES THAT GOD AGREES WITH ME ON TOPIC X. There's no harm in admitting what is an obvious reality, but you seem unwilling to do so. I'm just trying to make sense of that. Why NOT just admit that your theories about God's positions on X are subjective?
Stan...
The difference between the two of us (on this topic) is that I believe that you can know the truth (indeed, "shall"), and you don't.
Well, I have already allowed that I DO believe you can know the Truth, AS LONG AS you don't mean by that that you can objectively and definitively know your position on Topic X to be perfectly aligned with God's.
But again, if you think you can OBJECTIVELY "know" that God is opposed to (for instance) marriage between gay folk, then all you have to do is provide the OBJECTIVE evidence for it.
The thing is, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to support YOUR INTERPRETATIONS. If you had it, you could offer it and I could see it, measure it, weigh it and recognize it in the real world.
Where am I mistaken?
Again, I am sincerely NOT being contentious here, I just can't see how this is debatable. Our opinions and interpretations are on topics that can't be measured/confirmed ARE, by definition, subjective - I'm just trying to understand how you feel otherwise. What am I missing?
Look, Dan, your position is clear. We can (essentially) know nothing positively about what God thinks. I believe that Scripture is abundantly clear on far more topics than you'll admit and can know positively what God thinks on these topics. And that poor horse is so dead that kicking it more just won't help. We disagree. Are you going to make it better by repeating it?
Post a Comment