Re (2): Degrees of Knowledge

Steve, my friend, I am at a loss as to what it is you are trying to communicate here. You seem to be saying that you disagree with the definition afforded truth in the newsletter (Degrees of Knowledge...) and yet the definition you put forward seems little different than the one it expresses. Now I am not certain I can abide by the statement that "the word truth implies an absolute aquisition of human character." Is this the implicit definition of the typical Christian? Do most Christian people hear the word "truth" and think "absolute aquisition of human character"? Truth is something that is essential to character development, but I think most people's conception of truth—whether they be Christians or non—is that truth is that which corresponds to fact or reality, whether that fact or reality be the cat next door or God above.

So then, whatever you may have read into the newsletter—and I would suggest the possibility that you might have misunderstood it—let me put what I have written in the newsletter in very simple terms so that there is no misunderstanding. The truth is that which corresponds to that which is. To the degree that our minds understand and know reality, we have truth. To the degree that our minds do not know, understand, or are mistaken, we do not have truth but rather error or falsity. Thus, there is most often a mixture of truth and error because none of us are always right about every issue all the time. We are, of course, finite, and the Scriptures you cite bear that out—we see as in a glass darkly. But that does not mean that we should not pursue truth; it seems to me that arriving at that conclusion is foolishness. In the newsletter we said that all knowledge and all wisdom began with the fear of the Lord. Knowledge and wisdom refer to our ability to know the truth and afford it to daily life and I don't think anyone considers these to be vain pursuits: quite the contrary in fact. Sure, we can get puffed up heads when we think we're really smart, but the problem then is not an issue of truth but rather an issue of sin and pride, which, if we see clearly—if we understand the truth—it will set us free. We have to first see something is true before it can be changed and if there is a root of pride it must be revealed: this revelation is a form of knowing; knowing is the word we use to describe the state after which we have come into the knowledge of a given truth.

God has created the world and everything in it. Introspection can and does reveal truth. External observations can reveal truth. Truth all comes from God and there is no separation of truth, for it is indeed singular. We can sometimes put too much emphasis on one method of knowing truth, for example, say, endless hours of morbid introspection are not healthy. But does it follow that all forms of introspection are unhealthy all the time? Or that all external observations are unhealthy all the time? God is revealed in nature—is revealed within my own heart and mind—is revealed in anything and everything around me if I have eyes to see. We should not scorn seeking natural revelation for it works together with special revelation and it all emanates from a single source. That source is, of course, the Triune God.

The most effective lie probably is 99% truth and 1% error. But I don't imagine most of us have even that degree of accuracy all the time in our desire for understanding. Further, I believe it is a virtue to try to see the best in others and to weigh ideas, trying to gain from them what is true and discard what is not.

Now then, your talk of blues skies in Springfield and rain in Florida is very similar to what I have written in What is Reality? It All Depends. The basic point of (at least that section of) this newsletter is that our perception of reality has much to do with our vantage point, like the various witnesses who report on what they saw at the scene of an accident. Such observations of vantage points in nowise destroy any universal law of truth, they simply suggest that truth has many layers that all harmonize. There is nothing contradictory with saying that it is raining and Florida and that the sun is shining in Missouri. Universal truth would incorporate the differences in geographic locale into its considerations—and much else besides. Again, I repeat, there is nothing contradictory about rain in Florida and sun in Missouri—it does not destroy any universal law of truth. All it suggests is that these vantage points are limited.

And if I say that it is raining in Florida and sunny in Missouri, have I sought after truth in an arrogant, self-deceiving way? Has the truth of rain in Florida and sun in Missouri said anything about Jesus Christ as being the Way, the Truth, and the Life? What is incompatible about that? He made the world and everything in it: rain in Florida and sun in Missouri, at least today.

So I suppose my final question is: what kind of war are you waging, my friend? Have you been feeling really pressured lately and feeling cynical about any intellectual claims to knowledge? I would submit to you again that if so, it is neither the intellect nor the knowledge that is the culprit: it is pride and sin. But just because we sometimes have problems with, say, power drills, does that mean that we speak out against all power drills? Or should we say that power drills are wonderful tools and can greatly help us do all kinds of things like build decks and bridges and hang basketball hoops but that occasionally people get hurt using them or that being electrical and mechanical in nature, they sometimes develop problems and need to be repaired or replaced? So then, pursuing truth is a Godly pursuit and we shouldn't shun someone who seeks answers to questions in nature or in introspection or anywhere else. Granted, it is possible to become unbalanced and thereby take these pursuits to an unhealthy degree, but if the Spirit of the Living Christ lives within us, we will always come out on the other side that much stronger for it.

I hope that this gives some clarity of insight. If I have misread or misunderstood your post, then I ask that you correct me, for as I have admitted, I wasn't completely certain what all you were trying to convey.

God bless,
Eric

• Re(3): Degrees of Knowledge - By steven emerson March 13, 2005 at 02:19:38 PM
  • Re(4): Degrees of Knowledge - By Eric March 13, 2005 at 04:19:25 PM
• Re(1): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 10, 2005 at 07:37:21 AM
  • Re(2): Degrees of Knowledge - By Eric March 10, 2005 at 10:06:11 AM
    • Re(3): Degrees of Knowledge - By Linda March 10, 2005 at 11:35:07 AM
      • Re(4): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 11, 2005 at 07:57:11 AM
        • Re(5): Degrees of Knowledge - By Bill March 11, 2005 at 11:18:00 AM
          • Re(6): Degrees of Knowledge - By Eric March 11, 2005 at 12:58:19 PM
            • Re(7): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 12, 2005 at 08:09:34 PM