"Then Kalava touched his brow below the headband and recited the Confession: 'What a man knows is little, what he understands is less, therefore let him bow down to wisdom.' Himself, he trusted more in blood sacrifices and still more in his own strength; but he kept a decent respect for the Vilkui." (p. 112)
The Vilkui are the professional wise men and women.
It is a funny kind of "Confession," then: nothing about sins or transgressions, just something about lack of knowledge and understanding. "Wisdom" can mean practical guidance or deep understanding and I expect that Kalava seeks the former.
A mystery in the criminological/Agatha Christie sense, and even in the scientific sense, is a puzzle to be solved whereas a theological mystery is a doctrine that can never be understood by unaided human reason. I acknowledge mystery only in the former sense but with the qualifications that omniscience is impossible and that there will always be way more unknown than known.
34 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, omniscience is not impossible, because that is one of the attributes of God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are logical arguments that omniscience is impossible.
Paul.
Omniscience is certainly impossible for the kind of finite, temporal beings that we are talking about who, as long as they are conscious, always have an unknown future.
Frankly, if I was going to believe in deities, I'd prefer the mighty but less than omnipotent ones in traditional religions.
More relatable, and the fact that they're not infallible would make more sense of the observable universe, which is so kludgy and random.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: But I don't believe in those "logical" arguments against God's omniscience.
Mr. Stirling: I cannot take any kind of polytheism seriously because any beings which were finite cannot truly be gods. Can anyone truly believe in "gods" as cruel as Semitic gods like Moloch, ambiguous and treacherous as the Scandinavian gods, or as oafish as the Olympians, or the horrendous demon gods of the Aztecs, etc.?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Are you familiar with Godel's argument? I am not.
My argument:
If everything were known, then nothing would be unknown.
If nothing were unknown, then nothing would be future.
If nothing were future, then everything would be past or present.
If everything were past or present, then at the next moment everything would be past.
If everything were past, then nothing would be known.
Therefore, if everything were known, then nothing would be known.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. God can omniscient because everything that exists, has existed, will exist, or might exist has been known by God thru out all eternity. All that God knows because of His omniscience exists in His mind simultaneously, in a single "instant."
I recall how Stirling proposed a very similar argument when this was being discussed not so long ago.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
(We take it for granted that we disagree on these issues.)
Anyone who makes such claims about eternal omniscience has two tasks:
show us that the claims make sense;
show us that such a being does in fact exist.
A timeless instant is like a 2D plane with zero depth, an abstraction, not a concrete reality.
"...thru all eternity..." implies beginningless and endless duration whereas "...a single 'instant'..." denies duration.
Paul.
In any case, omniscience is impossible for finite, temporal minds which was the original point about our attitude to "mystery."
Sean: that's a circular argument; it assumes a particular definition of "deity" beforehand.
My own take is that if I believed in supernatural entities, I would not believe that the one/ones responsible for -this- universe (and the human race) were omnibenevolent or omniscient or omnipotent.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, we do have fundamental disagreements.
I have proposed arguments for the existence of God from philosophers as varied as Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Since you disagreed with them, I don't think anything more can be said on that front.
I have also argued that the miracles recorded at Lourdes* is, at the very least, evidence of something very strange, even supernatural, occurring there. Again, that did not convince you.
I disagree with your comment about "duration." I do not believe it impossible for all times to be eternally present in God's mind.
Mr. Stirling: I am sorry if I gave a weak circular argument and to have possibly misunderstood you. Philosophers, theologians, and Biblical scholars like Jacques Maritain, Mortimer Adler, Abbot John Chapman, Fr. Raymond Brown, etc., would have discussed these matters far more competently.
I do believe God is all the things you disbelieve in. As for the imperfect world and universe we live in, I recall you saying that if there was one Christian doctrine you thought likely to be true, it was Original Sin. That is where I believe all our imperfections ultimately stem from.
Ad astra! Sean
*It was you who brought to my attention a truly striking miracle at Lourdes: a man dying of bone cancer was instantaneously cured when placed in the waters of Lourdes. The toughest, most skeptical investigators and physicians could find no natural/scientific explanation for the cure. I considered that to be evidence of the supernatural.
Sean,
It is a phenomenon that has not yet been explained like a yogi apparently existing without eating.
I don't think Plato presents an argument. Aquinas's First Cause argument is hopeless.
Self is recognized as such by contrast with other which is recognized as other because it is perceived and reperceived consistently over time so the concept of timeless self-consciousness is questionable.
Paul.
I might analyse the First Cause argument on my Religion and Philosophy blog with a link from here.
Kaor, Paul!
I looked up that yogi's case--and found grounds for possible fraud there. To say nothing of how DIFFERENT that was from something as beneficial as a cure.
Ad astra! Sean
There was also a Catholic woman who was supposed not to eat, Theresa Neumann.
The First Cause argument is on the Religion And Philosophy blog.
Kaor, Paul!
Not sure I ever heard of Theresa Neumann before, something else to look up. But my reaction is to be skeptical. ALSO, the Church disapproves of extreme asceticism, smacking as it does of spiritual pride and vanity. And of risking needless damage to one's health.
One further point about Lourdes: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for what happens at Lourdes is divine intervention. Strained, desperate, convoluted, and complex attempts at explaining away the miracles recorded there are simply not convincing.
I'll look up your First Cause article.
Ad astra! Sea
Sean,
Divine intervention is not the simplest explanation because there are philosophical problems with monotheism.
Strained etc attempts are unnecessary. Scientists should seek explanations and sometimes acknowledge that they can't find any yet.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't agree with those philosophical objections to monotheism.
EXCEPT, that is exactly what I have seen over and over, strained and desperate attempts to explain away what happens at places like Lourdes. Anything will do in attempts to avoid being forced to even think Christianity might be TRUE, and, worse of all, those ghastly Catholics! (Snorts)*
Of course genuine scientists should study the miracles recorded at Lourdes. But, so far, I've seen nothing from such people to make me think those miracles were not interventions by God.
Ad astra! Sean
*If there is one thing foam-at-the-mouth Jack Chick fans and the most radical atheists have in common it's hatred of the Catholic Church!
Sean,
And I do agree with those philosophical objections which I have tried to clarify.
Many people consider and are not convinced by cosmological arguments and ontological arguments and arguments for the historical veracity of the resurrection. We ought to be able to discuss these questions without claiming that the guys on the other side of the argument are being dishonest. It is certainly true that many people attempt to avoid being forced to even think that Christianity might be UNTRUE but that is beside the point when considering arguments and evidence.
No one is obliged to make anyone think that those miracles are NOT interventions by God. The most that any scientist can possibly say is that there is no known material explanation. As long as the discussion is framed in these terms, that the cures should continue to be called divine interventions until it can be shown that they are NOT such interventions, the whole discussion is skewed the wrong way. It remains a partisan argument instead of just a consideration of the evidence and of how much the evidence can show.
Paul.
I always feel that I am trying to do three things:
clarify the issues;
locate the discussion in a broader context;
show that there is argument to be considered against acceptance of particular religious beliefs.
Convincing the other person in the course of a single exchange can never be an expected outcome.
an
I am thankfully unfamiliar with Jack Chick and he really does not need to be brought into it.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree on the desirability of clarifying what ever issues are being discussed.
At the very least, since you mentioned it, those who disbelieve in Christ's resurrection should concede that belief is itself a historical fact going straight back to the Apostles and the NT. Which means attempts by people like Casey and Crossley to say that it was only some kind of metaphorical Resurrection contradicts the fact of how that belief was and is understood and is thus unhistorical.
I agree scientists are perfectly free to say the striking miracles recorded and studied at Lourdes have no known natural/scientific explanation. I am equally free to say Occam's Razor applies to those miracles, that the simplest explanation for them is that they are supernatural interventions by God.
You are fortunate Jack Chick seems to be little known in the UK. He is all too well known to many US Catholics because of how, for nearly sixty years, he has preached hatred of the Catholic Church thru his comic book tracts. His works were or still are popular with many, but not most (I hope!) evangelical Protestants.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Carey and Crossley acknowledge that belief in the resurrection was very early and was not metaphorical.
Scientists as scientists can ONLY say whether or not they have found a material explanation for a phenomenon. To go further and say that an (as yet) unexplained phenomenon is a divine intervention is go beyond science into faith.
Occam's Razor does not work in this case for those of us who have philosophical criticisms of that concept of God.
An event is explained by showing that it is an instance of a law. A law is explained by showing that it is an instance of a more general law. The most general laws cannot be explained. There is no guarantee that there are not occasional random exceptions to some of the laws.
Paul.
Casey
It is important not to misrepresent anyone while disagreeing with them.
Crossley in fact argues that Mark's Gospel was written much earlier than most scholars think.
Kaor, Paul!
I thought men like Casey and Crossley disbelieved in the actual, literal Resurrection of Christ. Which is why I thought they took only a metaphorical/"spiritual" view of that prime miracle.
I still disagree with your objections to the applicability of Occam's Razor to the miracles recorded at Lourdes. Which means I disagree with those philosophical objections you have.
I'm puzzled by the mention of St. Mark's Gospel, which I had not mentioned. Since my view is now that of the neo-Griesbachian hypothesis, I believe St. Matthew's Gospel was written first, next came Mark's Gospel, both around or before AD 50.
I no longer believe in Markan Priority or the Q theory. The work of scholars like William Farmer has shown how many holes and weaknesses it has.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think your assumptions or interpretations get in the way of understanding what someone else is saying. Casey (dead now) and Crossley did not/do not believe in a literal, physical resurrection. But they did/do acknowledge that the Apostles believed in and proclaimed a literal, not a metaphorical, resurrection.
I know you disagree with the philosophical objections but I have tried to state them and we have not discussed them in any way adequately.
You had not mentioned Mark's Gospel but I mentioned it as showing something unexpected about Crossley's position which in turn shows that his views need to be considered in detail for what they are and not just subsumed under a general body of sceptical interpretations of the NT. Meanwhile, however, the Q theory holds sway despite, of course, some scholars disagreeing with it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am trying to be fair to men like Casey/Crossley. I did not say THEY denied that belief in the actual resurrection of Christ was what the Apostles believed and proclaimed.
Not being a philosopher means I cannot adequately respond to your objections. For that other philosophers like the late Mortimer Adler (two of whose books I've read) would need to reply.
I do recall you mentioning how Crossley no longer believes in a late dating for Mark's Gospel. And the impression I get is that the Q theory is under increasing criticism--because of how other scholars arguments and objections were having an effect.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction, I erred in stating immediately above that I did not deny Casey and Crossley did not deny belief in Christ's resurrection was what the Apostles believed. I ERRONEOUSLY did say I thought they took a metaphorical/"spiritual" view of the Resurrection.
Drat!
Sean
Sean,
We shouldn't have to TRY to be fair. That should be part of the deal! Understand exactly what someone IS saying before responding to it.
Is Q under increasing criticism or is it just that you seek out and read criticisms of Q?
We tend to read something in the literature and accept it until we read something else that contradicts it. Thus, I read that, when Jesus is described at one point in one of the Gospels as "the son of Mary," this could imply illegitimacy because why isn't the father being named? I passed this on in good faith to some people that I was teaching. Crossley's latest book states that naming only the mother does not necessarily imply illegitimacy.
I think that you need to suspend judgement on the philosophical objections rather than say that you do not accept them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Sometimes trying to be fair has to be the beginning of being fair.
Yes, the impression I got from reading David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM has been that Q/Markan Priority has been under increasing criticism. Before then I had accepted Q/Markan Priority. And, if some like Crossley now accept an early date for Mark, that seems a sign that the earlier consensus is being revised, because of those criticisms.
So, I believe the neo-Griesbachian hypothesis best fits the known evidence.
I knew Our Lord was sometimes called "the son of Mary."
I also don't accept those philosophical objections because they still contradict what has been recorded at Lourdes and what I believe has been revealed to mankind thru divine revelation. Philosophical arguments of that kind cannot be proven the way 2 + 2 can be proven to equal 4.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Philosophically, I think that self-consciousness requires self-other contrast. "I" makes sense only as the subject of a sentence of the form: "I perceive (fill in the blank)." This in turn requires memory. Some objects of consciousness are differentiated from mere mental images or imaginings and regarded instead as other/outer/external only because they are consistently reperceived and recognized as having been seen before over time. This implies that a self with neither objects nor time is an empty concept. When you think of any kind of self-conscious entity, you think of it as relating and responding to other beings over time. How does this reasoning contradict what has been recorded at Lourdes? And how can I accept anything as a divine revelation if I don't in the first place already believe that there is a divine being to reveal itself?
Paul.
Post a Comment