Is all truth propositional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P. F. Pugh said:
The elephant in the room here is a term that I have used before that I will define--numinous: the experience of feeling the presence of something wholly other. I realize that the term is popular among liberals, the neo-orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics, but I think it needs to be considered in Reformed circles as well.

I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.
Click to expand...

Never even heard the word before. Thanks.

Although I would certainly say that we can have numinous experiences, I would yet say that humans cannot describe them, not because of some objective indescribability, but because of our finitude and present inability to do so. So in that case, truth is still propositional as far as human apprehension goes. We would be able to describe numinous experiences if we had significantly more knowledge.

Of course, there's still a difference between, for instance, feeling happy and having cognizance of the proposition "I am happy." But in that case you do not need to resort to numinous experiences, just to any example of emotion.
 
The numinous is a particularly apt example, though, because it deals with an awareness of a spiritual realm (and BTW, Satan can, I believe, make use of the numinous, as it is a feature of world religions other than Christianity) and, for a Christian, of God's presence.

I don't think more knowledge would aid us in describing the numinous. The description, for example, in Isaiah 6 of the throne room of God provides great knowledge, but all of the propositions concerning what the prophet experienced merely encircle the actual experience. Even in the reading of it, inspired as it is, there is more in the experience than mere words could ever describe. As it is, the description always sends a tingle up my spine.

Personally, the best expressions of what the numinous feels like are expressed in art rather than propositionally. Music, in particular, can convey something of the numinous. I also think that places may have a sense of God's presence in a unique way (thus why God had the tabernacle and temple built to exact specifications). Gothic cathedrals, in particular, but here I'm just describing my own experience, not any general principle. God uses different vehicles to convey His presence for different people.

Unfortunately, no major works on the subject have been published except for Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy which is, at best, neo-orthodox (though it does contain, I think, some great insights on the effect of certain biblical passages). C. S. Lewis hints at the concept, but doesn't develop it. I'm hoping some reformed theologian will pick up on the topic, but so far it's mostly an Anglican/Roman Catholic thing.

That said, I'll also say that propositional truth is, of course, necessary--I am not trying to denigrate it in any way, simply to put it in its proper place in the created order and in our theology.
 
Just to be honest with you, your post sounds subjective in nature and idolatrous in some form.
Click to expand...

I think I was careful to note that Satan can and does counterfeit the numinous. The way to tell (and I use this criterion, by the way, in my analysis of tongues and miracles) is, if the experience of the numinous points me toward God and His word, then it's of God. If it does not, then it's of the Devil. There is the distinction.

I will admit that there is some subjectivity involved, but it's not unlike saying that God has different callings for different people. Some are called to be Anglicans and some to be Baptists and some to be Presbyterians. I don't think it idolatry to say that we are all worshipping the same God.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.
Click to expand...

1. Exactly how do you know this "numinous experience" to be true? Is it based on a "feeling"?
2. And if you can know this experience to be true, how can you communicate to another this "numinous experience"?
3. Have you been reading Schleiermacher or Otto?
 
Whitefield said:
P. F. Pugh said:
I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.
Click to expand...

1. Exactly how do you know this "numinous experience" to be true? Is it based on a "feeling"?
2. And if you can know this experience to be true, how can you communicate to another this "numinous experience"?
3. Have you been reading Schleiermacher or Otto?
Click to expand...

These are good questions. A Mormon could reply "I know because of the burning in my bosom" which is a common answer with them.

A Quaker could appeal to the inner light.
 
1. If you read my clarification, I established a criteria for determining whether a numinous experience is of God or of Satan. If it points you back to God and His word, then it's from God. In other words, we know because of scripture.

2. There's the problem. It's a non-propositional experience, so it's going to be imprecise no matter how you try to communicate it. There are attempts in Edwards to try and do this, but at best, experiences of the numinous are personal evidences, not propositional.

3. Yes. In particular, I read Otto and while I disagree with his presuppositions and intellectual grounding, I think he has some good points, even if he takes them to conclusions (based on bad theology) that I wouldn't. Again, I really wish that some solid reformed theologian would write on the subject, but sadly, none have (though Edwards seems to set a stage for it).
 
P. F. Pugh said:
1. If you read my clarification, I established a criteria for determining whether a numinous experience is of God or of Satan. If it points you back to God and His word, then it's from God. In other words, we know because of scripture.

2. There's the problem. It's a non-propositional experience, so it's going to be imprecise no matter how you try to communicate it. There are attempts in Edwards to try and do this, but at best, experiences of the numinous are personal evidences, not propositional.

3. Yes. In particular, I read Otto and while I disagree with his presuppositions and intellectual grounding, I think he has some good points, even if he takes them to conclusions (based on bad theology) that I wouldn't. Again, I really wish that some solid reformed theologian would write on the subject, but sadly, none have (though Edwards seems to set a stage for it).
Click to expand...

1. So we use the propositional truths of Scripture to test the validity/truth of "numinous experiences"? I'm not sure what "points you back to" means.

2. Then there is no way I can determine the truth of your experience. That means the "truth" communicated to you through this "numinous experience" is meaningless to me.

3. Maybe the fact that no Reformed theologian has written on this subject tells us something about the subject, since mysticism does not seem to advance the Reformed cause.
 
Philip please consider this!

Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.
__________________
Philip

Ok, real quick, I'll define an absolute as something that must be either rejected or accepted as whole (ie: you can't accept one part and not another).

Truth, as I stated before, is that which is certain and ultimately indubitable (we, as humans and sinners, of course, will doubt the truth, so in one sense truth is dubitable).

I'm not setting God's love against rationality here, but in a complementary position, much like free will is not set against God's divine decrees.

Part of what I'm trying to get at here is that there are parts of divine revelation that are not propositional in nature. I would consider an experience of God's presence to be a revelation here. I may be able to say "I felt God's presence", but I will not be able to express exactly why or how.

The elephant in the room here is a term that I have used before that I will define--numinous: the experience of feeling the presence of something wholly other. I realize that the term is popular among liberals, the neo-orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics, but I think it needs to be considered in Reformed circles as well.

I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.
__________________
Philip


The numinous is a particularly apt example, though, because it deals with an awareness of a spiritual realm (and BTW, Satan can, I believe, make use of the numinous, as it is a feature of world religions other than Christianity) and, for a Christian, of God's presence.

I don't think more knowledge would aid us in describing the numinous. The description, for example, in Isaiah 6 of the throne room of God provides great knowledge, but all of the propositions concerning what the prophet experienced merely encircle the actual experience. Even in the reading of it, inspired as it is, there is more in the experience than mere words could ever describe. As it is, the description always sends a tingle up my spine.

Personally, the best expressions of what the numinous feels like are expressed in art rather than propositionally. Music, in particular, can convey something of the numinous. I also think that places may have a sense of God's presence in a unique way (thus why God had the tabernacle and temple built to exact specifications). Gothic cathedrals, in particular, but here I'm just describing my own experience, not any general principle. God uses different vehicles to convey His presence for different people.

Unfortunately, no major works on the subject have been published except for Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy which is, at best, neo-orthodox (though it does contain, I think, some great insights on the effect of certain biblical passages). C. S. Lewis hints at the concept, but doesn't develop it. I'm hoping some reformed theologian will pick up on the topic, but so far it's mostly an Anglican/Roman Catholic thing.

That said, I'll also say that propositional truth is, of course, necessary--I am not trying to denigrate it in any way, simply to put it in its proper place in the created order and in our theology.
__________________
Philip
Click to expand...

Philip,
I believe that you are meaning to refer to noumenal from Immanual Kant’s Noumenon.

noumenon, in the philosophical system of Immanuel Kant, a "thing-in-itself"; it is opposed to phenomenon, the thing that appears to us. Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.

Kant, Schleiermacher, and others sought to ground the knowledge and experience of the Divine apart from His Self Revelation. This is a dangerous and blind alley to go down.

Carl F H Henry said,
Schleiermacher found the essence of religion in inner feeling, but insisted that the religious consciousness stands in a relations to the religious reality even though we can pronounce no objective judgments about that reality. … Given the declared absence of transcendent rational disclosure and valid propositional truth about God, the situational possibility soon arises of internal sentiments, symbolic expressions or mythical formulations which are believed to be in touch with the ultimate religious reality, even though they can lay no claim to objective truth or historical factuality.

I implore you brother, beware all such subjective, non-revelatory mysticism. These roads do not lead to heaven.
 
The numinous is distinct from the noumenon, Bob. Otto, in writing, was careful to distinguish the two. The numinous is somewhat more concrete and comprehensible than the noumenon.

The numinous signals the presence of something outside the phenomena, but not wholly incomprehensible. The clearest examples of it in Scripture are described in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. This is completely different from what Schleiermacher taught because there are aspects that can be communicated, they just won't necessarily convey the message to all audiences. An unbeliever can read Isaiah 6 without having the reaction that I have, partially because He doesn't have the Holy Spirit.

On Lance's points:

1. I would say that we should judge experiences of the numinous in much the way that I (as a soft cessationist) judge evidence of spiritual gifts: if it motivates me to deepen my relationship with God and read His word, then it must be His Spirit at work.

2. Well, how does one communicate the glory of God, anyway? It ends up being more of a personal proof than anything else. That said, physical description tends to do the best job at communicating the numinous. C. S. Lewis, in particular, does an excellent job in certain of his works (The Great Divorce in particular).

3. Well, I don't think most in reformed circles have given it much thought. To someone like Gordon Clark, the appearance of something more than logical would be anathema. As for it being mysticism, unless we're going to call Isaiah, the Apostle John, Jonathan Edwards, and C. S. Lewis mystics, it's not an apt term.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
3. Well, I don't think most in reformed circles have given it much thought. To someone like Gordon Clark, the appearance of something more than logical would be anathema. As for it being mysticism, unless we're going to call Isaiah, the Apostle John, Jonathan Edwards, and C. S. Lewis mystics, it's not an apt term.
Click to expand...

Twice now you have mentioned Edwards in this discussion. Are you trying to push Edwards into Otto's camp? If you are, I would like to see some evidence where Edwards would agree with Otto. If you are not trying to lend credence to Otto by invoking Edwards name, then leave Edwards out of it.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
I don't think more knowledge would aid us in describing the numinous. [...]

Personally, the best expressions of what the numinous feels like are expressed in art rather than propositionally.
Click to expand...

Certainly there is a distinction between the experience of seeing an art picture and accurately describing the art picture. But that doesn't mean the latter can't be done.

Otherwise, do you think that God can describe a numinous experience propositionally? If not, then that's quite a statement.

Honestly Philip, I think you're getting too worked up about the fact that some of our experiences are non-propositional. Obviously feeling happy is not propositional -- but it can be perfectly described propositionally, and it of course doesn't follow that there exists some form of truth that is non-propositional (to the human apprehension, at least). You need to ensure that you keep your categories distinct, so you don't say that certain experiences are non-propositional and therefore truth itself can be non-propositional.
 
First of all, I need to clarify that I am walking a fine line here between two equal and opposite errors. The first is mysticism, which we all recognize as a grievous error, but the second is far more common in reformed circles: rationalism. Rationalism, in my mind, limits revelation to propositional revelation. However, I think God's revelation to us as individuals is not merely propositional (though it certainly contains propositions) but personal. There is something to knowing and experiencing God that definitely goes beyond the propositional. If this were not so, then God would not have used so many metaphors in Scripture to communicate it.

Whitefield said:
Twice now you have mentioned Edwards in this discussion. Are you trying to push Edwards into Otto's camp? If you are, I would like to see some evidence where Edwards would agree with Otto. If you are not trying to lend credence to Otto by invoking Edwards name, then leave Edwards out of it.
Click to expand...

I do think Edwards provided proper criteria in Religious Affections for discerning between true and false affections (and the numinous would fall into the category of affections). I am bringing Edwards to the table as a witness to the fact that not all truth is propositional, but that some is experiential.

I brought Otto in because I use a term that he coined and defined, not because I agree with his conclusions about the numinous (which were cloudy and indistinct, in any case).

Confessor said:
Certainly there is a distinction between the experience of seeing an art picture and accurately describing the art picture. But that doesn't mean the latter can't be done.

Otherwise, do you think that God can describe a numinous experience propositionally? If not, then that's quite a statement.
Click to expand...

I think we do have examples of the numinous described in scripture (Isaiah 6, as I have noted before), so yes there can be descriptions (I'm still working all this out).

Where I might disagree (though I think we agree--not quite sure yet) say that the mere description is enough. I'll describe

For years, I have admired the architecture of Salisbury Cathedral in Salisbury, England. For years, I had studied pictures of it, noted its features, and looked a bit at its history. I could, conceivably, have become an expert on the building without ever going there. However, I cannot be said to know or really understand Salisbury unless I have been there (as a matter of fact, I have--beautiful place).

The experience is not enough to really appreciate the cathedral (ie: I wouldn't appreciate it if I didn't know how old it was, what the stories in the windows meant, some basic principles of architecture, etc), but mere propositions about it (it's 750 years old, there are Bible stories in its windows, it's early English Gothic, etc) would not be enough either. I have to have both.

Hope that clarifies somewhat.
 
Philip,

I think your example does explain yourself very well. At this point, it's just a matter of using the right terms.

As you said, there is a distinct difference between properly describing an experience with propositions and simply having the experience. I totally agree with you on this. But from this distinction, it does not follow that truth is non-propositional, just that experiences are (after all, we cannot describe experiences as "true" except metaphorically). They can still be described perfectly with propositions, but nonetheless, as you pointed out, there is a difference between describing these experiences with propositions and actually having the experience.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
I do think Edwards provided proper criteria in Religious Affections for discerning between true and false affections (and the numinous would fall into the category of affections). I am bringing Edwards to the table as a witness to the fact that not all truth is propositional, but that some is experiential.
Click to expand...

Could you please point me to the passage(s) in Religious Affections which explain what you are trying to say about numinous experiences?

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 06:18:56 EST-----

Confessor said:
As you said, there is a distinct difference between properly describing an experience with propositions and simply having the experience. I totally agree with you on this. But from this distinction, it does not follow that truth is non-propositional, just that experiences are (after all, we cannot describe experiences as "true" except metaphorically). They can still be described perfectly with propositions, but nonetheless, as you pointed out, there is a difference between describing these experiences with propositions and actually having the experience.
Click to expand...

And I'm still interested in finding out what truths are communicated through numinous experiences, which cannot be found out through scriptural propositions.
 
I do think it important to distinguish between knowledge of Truth and of truths.

A truth is propositional, whereas Truth (part and parcel of God Himself) is personal. I may deduce truths from an experience of Truth Himself (if that's an innacurate term, then I apologize). We may know God Himself without necessarily knowing a whole lot about Him--that can come later. It's just as possible to know a lot about God without ever knowing God Himself.

Could you please point me to the passage(s) in Religious Affections which explain what you are trying to say about numinous experiences?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he was advocating such a concept, but anticipating it, and guarding against its misuse. Particularly in Chapter 2, when he speaks of false signs of true religious affections, Edwards draws a line that I am applying to the numinous as a guard against mysticism.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
A truth is propositional, whereas Truth (part and parcel of God Himself) is personal. I may deduce truths from an experience of Truth Himself (if that's an innacurate term, then I apologize). We may know God Himself without necessarily knowing a whole lot about Him--that can come later. It's just as possible to know a lot about God without ever knowing God Himself.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reference to chapter 2 in Edwards. I will reread it.

I still contend that since the truth imparted through "numinous experiences" is totally subjective, is not propositional, and cannot be objectified for verification, then it has no meaning to another. You may have all the "numinous experiences" of truth imaginable but I cannot experience your experiences. We can debate the truth or falsity of propositions, but we cannot debate experiences. One may truly have an experience, but there is no way another person can gain any truth from the first person's experience.
 
Is experience subjective? Yes, but then again, God deals with us as individuals as well as corporately. It's the one and the many, yet again.

However, just because experiencing God is subjective does not imply that such is not experience of Truth Himself. In fact, one may draw propositional truths from the experience, just as one might draw propositional truths from a conversation with a friend. Some of my greatest experiences of God's presence have resulted in theological insight (or vice versa).

I'm also probably using the term "numinous" slightly more loosely than Otto did.
 
Indeed there is gold there, Ben (though I completely disagree with the statement that persons are propositions).
 
The threads found through the preceding links may contain the statement that persons are propositions: but the specific posts I linked contain no such assertion.
 
py3ak said:
The threads found through the preceding links may contain the statement that persons are propositions: but the specific posts I linked contain no such assertion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I, for the record, do not believe that persons are propositions.
 
Ah--now that I read again, I see Rev Winzer directly refuting the idea--I saw it quoted and was tired when I read it. Too many suits and too little sleep today, I'm afraid.

Good to find that we have some agreement. I tend to agree with Chesterton that too much logic makes men go mad.
 
Chesterton was logical enough--he just had (I think) a wrong understanding of Calvinism, probably implied by the few Calvinists he would have known (he referred to universalism as an "optimistic Calvinism"--showing how badly he understood it).

There's more than one side of the horse to fall off of.
 
P. F. Pugh said:
There's more than one side of the horse to fall off of.
Click to expand...

No matter which side one falls off one still ends up in the horse "mud." I contend is it illogical (insert Spock imitation here) for one to reject Protestantism and wander out into the Roman wilderness.
 
Logic may be valid and still wrong, Lance.

And don't forget that good reformed theology was scarce in England at the time. Many Christians went Catholic to avoid the error of liberalism. When there's no good reformed teaching and the only available options are liberalism, arminianism, and Catholicism, its no wonder people went Catholic: liberalism is obviously wrong and Arminianism is obviously shallow.

But we're off-topic . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
"Objective Truth"
2 3
Replies
67
Views
12K
Vytautas
Vytautas
J
  • Locked
Evolution of Truth
Replies
4
Views
2K
Douglas P.
Douglas P.
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
Logic and Truth
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
just_grace
J
B
  • Locked
How to define truth
Replies
6
Views
5K
Civbert
C
C
  • Locked
Any truth in Psychological Egoism?
Replies
6
Views
6K
Claudiu
C
Back
Top