Questions, questions...

Alrighty then...

I figured that the questions Jude posted on my last entry would require a post all in themselves - perhaps several. But just to catch you up without you having to keep referring to the last comment section here's her note:

1. Do you think certainty can be a spectrum rather than either/or?

2. What questions do you think that questioners you know are asking (not an exhaustive list, just some examples)?

3. Which of these questions do you feel have certain answers?

4. What are the answers?

5. What do you base those answers on?

And here's the beginning of my thoughts:
1. Do you think certainty can be a spectrum rather than either/or?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the question. Do I think we must either be certain of everything or certain of nothing? No. I do think that we can be certain that there are answers to be found, though. And I base that on the same idea that modern science was based on - that a reasonable God created the universe and therefore we have reason to believe that there are answers to be found - reasonable ones.

I do, however, think that the word "certainty" by definition implies that on whatever the issue you either are or are not.


2. What questions do you think that questioners you know are asking (not an exhaustive list, just some examples)?

Well, I'm hearing (that is, my interpretation of what is being said) things along the lines of:

1. Is God really there, or are we just fooling ourselves?
2. If He's really there, what's He like?
3. How can we know?
4. Okay, the existence of Jesus tells me that God is love, but how do I reconcile that with what I see around me?
5. How does any of this affect who I am? How should it?
6. How do I know who to trust?

3. Which of these questions do you feel have certain answers?

Ah, now there's the rub! The answers depend on your starting point and your presuppositions. And that's where my concerns lie. It's in the methodology of finding truth based on a methodology of antithesis (that is, as in classical logic: A is not non-A) as opposed to synthesis (begin with a thesis, combine with the antithesis and find the synthesis. This becomes the new thesis and the process continues - thus never reaching any final conclusion. Also known as dialectical methodology - see my first Schaeffer quote) and the presupposition of a unified field of knowledge(that is, that all of knowledge is open to the rational - what can be verified and discussed, without a dichotomy - whether it is grace/nature, freedom/nature, faith or meaning or significance/rational, without any kind of "leap" of "faith").

I have that presupposition of a unified field of knowledge because the verbalized, propositional revelation of God (the Bible) speaks to both matters of the seen and unseen - both space-time history and meaning/significance.

Without that presupposition - that you CAN know, you will always have the dichotomy. Whether you use spiritual words or not, you will still be putting the things of God into the place of the non-rational.

As to the starting point - well, where else can you start but with yourself?

Soooooo... in case I've lost you in Schaeffer 101... I think that all the questions have answers.

4. What are the answers?

Very funny. You really think I'm going to cheat you of the search? Just don't let go of rationality (logic - as opposed to rationalism, meaning that "man begins absolutely and totally from himself, gathers the information concerning the particulars, and formulates the universals.").

I will give you some tidbits, though.

Here's the deal: The universe either came from nothing (that is, nothing nothing - not mass, energy, gravity, or anything else - nothing.), or it came from something impersonal, or it came from something personal.

Schaeffer says that he's never heard the argument for the first option sustained, but that it is, theoretically, the first possible answer.

The second option leaves the particulars ("A particular is any individual factor, any individual thing - the separate parts of the whole") without meaning. "Everything, including man, must be explained in terms of the impersonal plus time plus chance." This leaves us without a sufficient explanation for what is - including the personality of man.

However, if we begin with the personal then we have an explanation for the existence of the personality of man. "But once we consider a personal beginning, we have yet another choice to make. This is the next step: are we going to choose the answer God or gods? The difficulty with gods instead of God is that limited gods are not big enough. To have an adequate answer of a personal beginning, we need two things. We need a personal-infinite God (or an infinite-personal God) and we need a personal unity and diversity in God." "Plato understood that you have to have absolutes or nothing has meaning...but...his gods were not big enough to meet the need."

(okay, I'm just going to quote some passages from "He is There and He is Not Silent" here, bear with me...)

"Second, we need a personal unity and diversity in God - not just an abstract concept of unity and diversity, because we have seen we need a personal God. We need a personal unity and diversity. Without this we have no answer."

"What we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of being and existence, of the fact that God is there. That is what it is all about: He is there."

"There is no other sufficient philosophical answer than the one I have outlined. ... There is only one philosophy, one religion, that fills this need in all the world's thought, whether the East, the West, the ancient, the modern, the new, the old. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being, and it is the Judaeo-Christian God - not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He really exists."

Which brings us to ...

5. What do you base those answers on?

Umm... I base them on the sustainable idea that God is there and He has not been silent. He has revealed Himself to us in space-time history with a verbalized propositional revelation. Philosophy requires it in order to truly explain what is there. So I choose to trust the revelation of scripture as being authentic. I think there's enough evidence to support that choice. (Far more than what I've given you here.)

Do I understand it all? Nope. Do I think there's more to God than we can understand? Yep. Do I think that we can know "true truth" without having exhaustive truth? Yep. Do I think the revelation of God in Christ is ALL we need, and we can throw out the rest? Nope. Frankly, I don't even think that's the right starting point - but that's another discussion.

All quotes are Francis Schaeffer, mostly from "He is There and He is Not Silent".