Facts aren't Facts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
How should we think about such things as facts requiring interpretation? Facts never occur in a bare setting; the facts themselves change according to how we interpret them. For example, to observe an object as part of a scientific process, one needs to interpret that fact of data according to something in order to use it; indeed, our understanding of the world becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of that as a fact that we see in the world. Indeed, not just facts, but our perception too isn't bare. For example, we can see a ball because we interpret it to be different from its surroundings; that interpretation is itself based on a theory of how objects behave and are distinguishable from their surroundings. Even further, that ball we see we distinguish from its surroundings by its color; but the distinguishing between colors, saying one color is different from another, is itself an interpretation and requires a theory.

This sounds a lot like Van Til's ideas about facts, so perhaps thinking this way about facts is fine? If we do think about facts this way, an obvious worry presents itself: how do we escape subjectivism? I suppose some form of subjectivism can be escaped by being a Christian, though it would seem we still have an element of that subjectivism present in both our observations of the world and in our reading and interpretation of the Bible. But I'm also not sure how one would dialog with an unbelieving philosopher who held this view because if we both agreed that facts change according to one's background beliefs (which differ amongst people), it would be difficult to argue that Christianity is objectively true.

Thoughts? Answers to the questions and worries?
 
Last edited:
If we do think about facts this way, an obvious worry presents itself: how do we escape subjectivism?

This is only a problem if you pit subjectivism against bare facts. Things are what they are, regardless of how we interpret them. But we always have our worldview in place when we come accross any fact whatsoever. So no fact is bare, they are always interpreted in some way.


But I'm also not sure how one would dialog with an unbelieving philosopher who held this view because if we both agreed that facts change according to one's background beliefs (which differ amongst people), it would be difficult to argue that Christianity is objectively true.

No one is arguing that facts change. It is a fact that Jesus rose from the grave, it is an iterpretation of that fact that it is either due to some mysterious natural cause or due to divine intervention.
 
jwright82 said:
No one is arguing that facts change. It is a fact that Jesus rose from the grave, it is an iterpretation of that fact that it is either due to some mysterious natural cause or due to divine intervention.
Perhaps that is the difference between Van Til's ideas and the unbelieving view of facts carrying theories with them. The unbeliever who would support this kind of thinking would say that the facts do indeed change according to our background beliefs and that truth depends on the context. Some examples are....scientific theories in which we have contradictory ways of viewing the world, such as in classical and quantum mechanics, yet both are true within their context, and the facts of the matter (e.g., are particles waves?) depend on the theory one adopts; perhaps unbelievers viewing the incarnation and Trinity as impossible because of their presuppositions, whereas for Christians those are the fact of the matter; perhaps optical illusions in which the fact at first is that they appear in one way until we forcibly categorize it according to another way and so the fact of what we see changes; perhaps also viewing things in the world as separate objects instead of viewing them in some other way in which the fact is that there are no separate objects (or for another perceptual example, categorizing colors in a different scheme such that the fact is that there are a different number of primary colors than the number we usually think of).
 
Last edited:
This kind of relativism works in the context of an absolute Interpreter. Consider Daniel. For the unbelieving king and his council relativism brought confusion and sorrow. It brought light and life to Daniel for God gave him understanding, and with that kind of understanding comes insight and comfort that applies to all of life. I suppose a better way of stating it is, that all facts are not relative, but relational. In saying this, however, we must never exclude the propositional as an essential component of truth for humans.
 
Thanks!

armourbearer said:
I suppose a better way of stating it is, that all facts are not relative, but relational. In saying this, however, we must never exclude the propositional as an essential component of truth for humans.
If you get the time, could you expand on this a little? The idea is that the facts are absolute and unchanging, but we view them differently based on how we relate to God (and to the natural world and other people too perhaps?), who interprets them rightly for us? I guess that would save us from subjectivism in the natural world (well, to the extent that we can now know "the truth is out there;" finding the facts of the natural world will still be a subjective matter for the most part cause the Bible doesn't speak as much to those issues), and because we disagree with the unbelieving philosopher, we could argue for Christianity objectively by tying the objectivity to God's interpretation of the facts (which in turn requires a revelation for us to ground our knowledge of these things, though I'd imagine the unbeliever would ask about how we escape subjectivity in interpreting revelation, whether natural or special). Because of human finitude, none will ever know a fact is absolute unless humans relate them back to God, so perhaps that is the key defense for Christianity versus an unbeliever who holds that kind of relativism (though I wonder whether that counts as an objective defense; initially, it seems to be an "this is the only way to ground our facts, assuming we want to do so to begin with")?
 
Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it. They will never find the truth while they are running away from it. Post-modernism has provided a good critique of modernism. It has shown the modernist that it is destructive to personhood to depersonalise life. At the same time post-modernism suffers from its own self-created problems. It tells us that truth is a construct that people in power create to exercise rule over us. So what is their answer? To make truth a mere interpretation. What do they accomplish? They make the human being himself the lord of truth as if he is able to transcend life. He ends up making man more confused and troubled than the modernist did. He leaves man without anything definite to personalise. Nothing immanent has meaning. The transcendent person has made himself so aloof he is all alone. A relational model recognises that much of our understanding develops through relationships. Those relationships emphasise that we are finite creatures who cannot transcend life. Being immanently tied to life we are bound to other people and must learn to trust what they say to us, and respond with consideration and respect to them. The very existence of these inter-dependent relationships and our need to trust in authority and testimony is only possible and only satisfied in the living Creator and Redeemer who has revealed Himself as the transcendent authority whose testimony is trustworthy for all of life.
 
Some things to note:

One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.
 
Some things to note:

One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.

So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?

CT
 
Some things to note:

One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.

This is why we catechize our children.
 
So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?

Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

This is why we catechize our children.

Indeed it is. It's also why our elders, deacons, and pastors need to be men of good moral character.
 
So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?

Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.

I suppose my problem with your statement is that you are critiquing modern and postmodernism for not taking proper account of community etc. If at the end of the day, you are held responsible for your actions and beliefs regardless of which community you grow up with or join, then I am not sure what teeth your critique has. If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point. (To be fair, I have problems with both philosophies but just not at this point).

CT
 
If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point.

I didn't say that they are able to transcend their community---I said that they are able to evaluate it. There is a difference. When one evaluates one's own community, one is doing so with the tools of that community. Take, for example, Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. This book is a critique of English society in the mid-19th Century, but it is also a product of that society. One cannot evaluate anything except from a standpoint, and that standpoint is always influenced and shaped by a community---and there's nothing bad about this. I believe that humans are created to function in community.
 
Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective. While we could tie objectivity to God's self-revealed testimony, people could claim that we interpret natural revelation, and special revelation, differently because of our subjective background beliefs that cannot seem to be evaluated objectively because of their radical differences from person to person (and so the background beliefs seem only to be influenced by subjective factors, whether rational or irrational). They could also more easily claim the same sort of thing about the natural world (like in the investigations of science) because God's revelation doesn't reveal every universal for it. Perhaps I'm missing something important?

armourbearer said:
Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it.
How do we justify universals that Scripture doesn't cover then? We cannot know universals of the natural world, though we make appeal to them all the time. I would think that the truth about how the natural world functions, and its history, would be something that needs to be discovered, but the way to justify that those truths are out there is by acknowledging a God who usually works by ordinary providence in the world.

armourbearer said:
Nothing immanent has meaning.
Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our ever present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?

Philip said:
One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge.
Well, in dialoging with unbelievers, I guess that would help in responding to the charge of subjetivity in interpreting Scripture because it's impossible to avoid in any method of knowledge. But how do we know what is the right method?


As a side issue, it appears that on more than one occasion in this thread, appeal has been made to the ultimate misery of man without accepting Christianity. Is such an appeal allowed to be made in arguing for the truth of a position?
 
Last edited:
armourbearer said:
Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it.
How do we justify universals that Scripture doesn't cover then?

Scripture addresses us as ones who are already in possession of these universals. E.g., God is, who is my neighbour, no lie is of the truth, etc.

armourbearer said:
Nothing immanent has meaning.
Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our every present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?

My statement certainly does look dangerous when it is thrown out there on its own. Recalling that I said this is what happens in light of the post-modern critique, let the unbeliever counter that he can infuse meaning into immanent things, but by his own statement, it is "his" meaning, not such that enables him to share anything immanent with another. Again, the point is that his transcendence has destroyed the reality that our personhood is bound to the immanent.
 
Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective.

You have to do two things: first explode the idea that absolute truth (that is, things that are true in reality) is necessarily "objective" and capable of being dispassionately scrutinized---as Christians, we know that God is the truth and therefore truth is always personal. Second we must show the lie that the subjective is necessarily non-absolute---that there is no such thing as a true perspective or a true opinion.

What we have to show is that truth is discovered, not constructed---but it is discovered by means of certain skills and practices which are taught. Any epistemology must, in order to be adequate, come up with something toward a theory of teaching, how it works in general, and how it works best.

But how do we know what is the right method?

This is a tricky question---what method would you use to evaluate it? Could you justify this method?

Part of the trouble here is that methods are the kinds of things that are ingrained and learned through paying attention to instructors and practitioners. For example, in doing theology, there are certain theologians whose methods I particularly admire and seem to produce helpful insights. In doing philosophy, I find certain thinkers to use good methods and others to be less helpful in their approach. Evaluating methods is hard and is more intuitive than anything else.
 
armourbearer said:
Scripture addresses us as ones who are already in possession of these universals. E.g., God is, who is my neighbour, no lie is of the truth, etc.
Oh, that makes sense! So then with respect to scientific investigation, we are in possession of the knowledge that the universe is usually governed in a regular manner by God, and we have hope to figure out that manner. Perhaps though, the knowledge of that is built from other universals first?

armourbearer said:
My statement certainly does look dangerous when it is thrown out there on its own. Recalling that I said this is what happens in light of the post-modern critique, let the unbeliever counter that he can infuse meaning into immanent things, but by his own statement, it is "his" meaning, not such that enables him to share anything immanent with another. Again, the point is that his transcendence has destroyed the reality that our personhood is bound to the immanent.
Ohh, so if I understand right, the unbeliever could infuse meaning into a statement, but that meaning could not be shared with another; even if two infused something with the same meaning, their background assumptions are so individualized that they still would not be able to share it? But as to the main point of criticism (humans transcending destroying their personhood), I'll need to think about that some more. It makes some sense that personhood is tied to immanence because we are finite, though I'm not sure that's all that you were getting at. It's the rest I'll need to think on some more. It probably doesn't help that this is the first time I've heard of such things as this "relational model" or truth being personal. :)


Philip said:
You have to do two things: first explode the idea that absolute truth (that is, things that are true in reality) is necessarily "objective" and capable of being dispassionately scrutinized---as Christians, we know that God is the truth and therefore truth is always personal. Second we must show the lie that the subjective is necessarily non-absolute---that there is no such thing as a true perspective or a true opinion.
There's an interesting idea I haven't considered before: subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute. Since this is the first time I've heard of some of this, how would you in addressing an unbeliever show both? And what do we mean when we say "truth is personal"?

Philip said:
Evaluating methods is hard and is more intuitive than anything else.
Thanks! Those are some good points. It is kind of disappointing though that there isn't an easier way to evaluate methods. It tends to make them subjective, but if, as you mentioned above, subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute, I guess that point doesn't matter.
 
There's an interesting idea I haven't considered before: subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute. Since this is the first time I've heard of some of this, how would you in addressing an unbeliever show both?

I would start by simply talking about how the kinds of things that we believe spring from personal commitments. I would also show how the sciences proceed on the assumption that previous discoveries were genuine. We proceed in our knowledge by not reinventing the wheel, but rather taking the wheel for granted and proceeding with that assumption. The cultural baggage that we carry with us does get in the way, but it also is what makes any knowledge at all possible. Or, in the classroom, the teacher brings with her a set of values regarding education which she imparts to the students, who follow her instructions---it's highly subjective, but necessary for knowledge, and definitely absolute. If you refuse to co-operate with the teacher from the outset out of some misguided sense of empiricism, you will make little progress in learning.

And what do we mean when we say "truth is personal"?

In an ultimate sense we simply mean that God is the truth. In a more immediate sense we mean that our apprehension of truth depends on a personal commitment to it.

---------- Post added at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

It is kind of disappointing though that there isn't an easier way to evaluate methods.

You're telling me. I'm hopelessly analytic and would very much like to be able to find methods for evaluating methods. However, I can't see a way of avoiding infinite regress and skepticism. The ironic thing here, of course, is that even these are methods.
 
Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective. While we could tie objectivity to God's self-revealed testimony, people could claim that we interpret natural revelation, and special revelation, differently because of our subjective background beliefs that cannot seem to be evaluated objectively because of their radical differences from person to person (and so the background beliefs seem only to be influenced by subjective factors, whether rational or irrational). They could also more easily claim the same sort of thing about the natural world (like in the investigations of science) because God's revelation doesn't reveal every universal for it. Perhaps I'm missing something important?

It is sort of a modernist dream that we must be objective and unbiased to be truthful. I don't stop being me when I go about learning stuff.


Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our ever present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?

Their guilty of the same thing, objectivity in this ultimate sense is a myth. Don't let them froce that upon you, just point out that it is impossible to stop being who we are when we come to the table. It is funny because the only ones that seem to really harp on this being unbiased thing is atheists, everyone else recognizes how foolish it is.
 
I would start by simply talking about how the kinds of things that we believe spring from personal commitments. I would also show how the sciences proceed on the assumption that previous discoveries were genuine. We proceed in our knowledge by not reinventing the wheel, but rather taking the wheel for granted and proceeding with that assumption. The cultural baggage that we carry with us does get in the way, but it also is what makes any knowledge at all possible. Or, in the classroom, the teacher brings with her a set of values regarding education which she imparts to the students, who follow her instructions---it's highly subjective, but necessary for knowledge, and definitely absolute. If you refuse to co-operate with the teacher from the outset out of some misguided sense of empiricism, you will make little progress in learning.

I think I understand what you're saying, about how we must take some things on authority if we are ever to progress (if I have to rediscover pi before I can calculate the area of a circle, I'll never get anything done). But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.

I would say that the truth is always objective, because it does not change based on attitudes, feelings, or history. 2+2 will always equal four, no matter what baggage you're bringing to the table, and even if there were no humans in existence. Just as God would always be good, whether or not we can accept that, and even if we do not exist. Those things cannot change.

But our understandings of these truths will always be different, and therefore, subjective. So I would be comfortable saying that our beliefs are subjective. We both know God is good, but we will always understand that differently. We both believe that God demands justice, but we will probably pursue that in different ways.

I think that's what you were aiming for, I just want to be sure. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
 
So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?

Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.

I suppose my problem with your statement is that you are critiquing modern and postmodernism for not taking proper account of community etc. If at the end of the day, you are held responsible for your actions and beliefs regardless of which community you grow up with or join, then I am not sure what teeth your critique has. If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point. (To be fair, I have problems with both philosophies but just not at this point).

CT

What I think Philip is getting at is that we learn to be reformed withen a community. My daughter is being raised to be reformed, she just doesn't know it. She couldn't articulate out what the difference is between being reformed and being anything else. She is being formed rather than so much taught. This implies not only head knowledge, like the catechism, but practices as well, praying before a meal and bed or not sleeping in church. And it is a particuler community that I inhabit that enforces at least by example how I am trying to form her so to speak, everyone else talks the same and does the same.

Christians were worshipping long before they had systematic theologies, the first one was Origen's work in 218 AD. In fact it was these communaties that allowed for christian talk to develop into systematic thinking. We should say that our "talk" or even grammer as being reformed is the most biblical one there is. The grammer of the confession binds and determines how members of the community are to talk and think about certian subjects. The practices associated with the community bind and determine how we all act in this community.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

I think I understand what you're saying, about how we must take some things on authority if we are ever to progress (if I have to rediscover pi before I can calculate the area of a circle, I'll never get anything done). But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.

I would say that the truth is always objective, because it does not change based on attitudes, feelings, or history. 2+2 will always equal four, no matter what baggage you're bringing to the table, and even if there were no humans in existence. Just as God would always be good, whether or not we can accept that, and even if we do not exist. Those things cannot change.

But our understandings of these truths will always be different, and therefore, subjective. So I would be comfortable saying that our beliefs are subjective. We both know God is good, but we will always understand that differently. We both believe that God demands justice, but we will probably pursue that in different ways.

I think that's what you were aiming for, I just want to be sure. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I think what he saying is that the whole objective/subjective distinction is not the cleanest way to view. In theory I can point out a purely objective (2+2=4) or a purely subjective thing (my favorate color is red) in practice things are not so cleanly divided. In my day to day activities I don't make such distinctions as I go about my buissness and that in no way endagers "truth". We bring with us an almost precognitve "knowledge", tacit knowlwedge, to every situation we encounter.

Tacit knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.

It's simply that everyone, by necessity starts from some standpoint, some point of view. There is no such thing as objectivity because personal commitments and values always figure into the equation.

This is why I prefer the term "absolute truth" simply because "objective truth" implies that we can be objective in our knowledge.
 
If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point.

I didn't say that they are able to transcend their community---I said that they are able to evaluate it. There is a difference. When one evaluates one's own community, one is doing so with the tools of that community. Take, for example, Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. This book is a critique of English society in the mid-19th Century, but it is also a product of that society. One cannot evaluate anything except from a standpoint, and that standpoint is always influenced and shaped by a community---and there's nothing bad about this. I believe that humans are created to function in community.

I disagree that one has to use the tools of said community in order to evaluate it. The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency. If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community. When various ancient societies sacrificed people to the sun in order to gain favor with god, that was problematic even if the entire society had decided that the Sun was to be worshiped as supreme.

If all you mean is that one is influenced by others (family, friends, rulers etc.), then okay, but I don't see the problem with Modernism and Postmodernism ignoring/assuming such and moving on to something else.

CT
 
The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency.

How did you learn these? Chances are, you did so in a particular cultural context.

If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community.

Not necessarily. Again, take the idea of an internal critique. There is no place outside of any culture from which to critique culture.
 
The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency.

How did you learn these? Chances are, you did so in a particular cultural context.

I would say that you were introduced to them in a particular context. However that context may have done a good or bad job with such. Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.

If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community.

Not necessarily. Again, take the idea of an internal critique. There is no place outside of any culture from which to critique culture.

Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing? It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.

CT
 
Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.

Can you elaborate as to what these responsibilities are and what the consequences of not fulfilling them might be?

Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing?

Your own. What's the problem with this conclusion, exactly? If I critique American culture, how does that mean that I wasn't shaped by it? This seems to be a non-sequitor. Different cultures use reason in different ways, which is why they end up looking different. Innovation is simply putting ideas together in ways that none or few in your cultural context have done.

It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.

You can't transcend culture---not in the way you're talking about. The best you can do is to look at culture from the standpoint of some other culture or cultural period.
 
Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.

Can you elaborate as to what these responsibilities are and what the consequences of not fulfilling them might be?

For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.

Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing?

Your own. What's the problem with this conclusion, exactly? If I critique American culture, how does that mean that I wasn't shaped by it? This seems to be a non-sequitor. Different cultures use reason in different ways, which is why they end up looking different. Innovation is simply putting ideas together in ways that none or few in your cultural context have done.

The problem is that if you make culture that broad, then it starts to border on meaningless. Remember the issue was not that people are not being shaped by people around them etc., the issue was your critique of modernism and postmodernism for not properly taking such into account. What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?

It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.

You can't transcend culture---not in the way you're talking about. The best you can do is to look at culture from the standpoint of some other culture or cultural period.

So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known? If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?

CT
 
For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.

Ok. So? What does this have to do with whether one is capable of apprehending said laws objectively?

What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?

Humanity. We are intended to function in community and even when we are critiquing a community, it is always within that context. This is why, by the way, revelation needs to come in the form of God taking on our likeness and our form of life.

So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known?

I didn't say that. I said that the tools that you have are the tools of your culture. Ways of knowing and apprehending are taught---but they can also be used for critique. Maybe I'm just missing your criticism here, but I'm not sure how a certain set of tools makes certain conclusions inevitable. It may make certain conclusions more likely, but not, I think, inevitable.

If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?

I don't think that---I simply think that one's thinking and one's concerns are always conditioned by culture of one kind or another. What I'm rejecting here is enlightenment-style rationalism.
 
"post-modernism suffers from its own self-created problems. It tells us that truth is a construct that people in power create to exercise rule over us. So what is their answer? To make truth a mere interpretation. What do they accomplish? They make the human being himself the lord of truth as if he is able to transcend life. "

Thank you so much for the above observation Rev. Winzer. I've had people (angry bitter people) say this to me ( that truth is a construct of the ruling elite) over the years and I just realized how much that comment had been bothering me. Hey, the Lord healed me just now from that old barb! Thank you, thank you, Jesus.
 
For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.

Ok. So? What does this have to do with whether one is capable of apprehending said laws objectively?

The point is that if ones culture says sleeping around is alright, then one does not need some other culture to tell you that such is wrong. If you buy such, then I suppose we don't really disagree.

What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?

Humanity. We are intended to function in community and even when we are critiquing a community, it is always within that context. This is why, by the way, revelation needs to come in the form of God taking on our likeness and our form of life.

But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation. That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse. Unless you want to say such (which I don't think you do), I am not sure what your critique of modernism and postmodernism is.

So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known?

I didn't say that. I said that the tools that you have are the tools of your culture. Ways of knowing and apprehending are taught---but they can also be used for critique. Maybe I'm just missing your criticism here, but I'm not sure how a certain set of tools makes certain conclusions inevitable. It may make certain conclusions more likely, but not, I think, inevitable.

I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable. The issue is that it is not being used. I don't know how you can read, Romans 1 another way.

If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?

I don't think that---I simply think that one's thinking and one's concerns are always conditioned by culture of one kind or another. What I'm rejecting here is enlightenment-style rationalism.

And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.

CT
 
Thank you so much for the above observation Rev. Winzer. I've had people (angry bitter people) say this to me ( that truth is a construct of the ruling elite) over the years and I just realized how much that comment had been bothering me. Hey, the Lord healed me just now from that old barb! Thank you, thank you, Jesus.

May God be praised for the knowledge of the truth that sets us free!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top