Epistemology - how do you know what you know?

[M. Partyka]

This discussion originally got going in the "Noah's flood: global or local" thread. I'll copy the main points here:


If, somehow, some sort of indisputable evidence were to be produced that proved that the flood of Noah was merely a local phenomenon, would that change your faith? It wouldn't affect mine. I don't think it matters all that much, but hey, that's just me.
With some trepidation, I really must point out that creationist defenses of a literal Genesis betoken an evangelical Protestant phronema, not an Orthodox phronema ... and a distinctively American Protestant phronema, at that ... "The scriptures were written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" (Augustine of Hippo) ...
I think this speaks to the question which was asked earlier (and still waits to be addressed) about, "How would it affect your faith if, regarding the flood, <such-and-such> turned out to be true only 'in a sense' rather than true as literally stated (in addition to being true 'in a sense')?"
For me the only thing that would destroy my faith would be some sort of incontrovertible proof that Christ did not rise from the dead....
Let's play pretend for a moment. What if somehow it were incontrovertibly proven that the miracle in which Christ fed the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes never took place?
An interesting choice of miracles, M. Partyka ... because it is recorded in all four gospels, the critics, by virtue of their own discipline, would have to concede that, well, ~something~ must have happened ... but if it could be proven that this miracle never happened, I would want to know, first, if the reports of this miracle are deliberate frauds ... if not, then what are we talking about ... ultimately, however, my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God and the only saviour of men is not based on any written document, even inspired scripture ... my ultimate faith is in the Word made flesh, not the Word made words ...
As for my belief in Christ, it is based on indemonstrable faith....It's not based on some experience I've had or some text I've read....It is ultimately based on faith, the first principle, or else it is based on something else which becomes our first principle, ad infinitum.
What I find interesting about these kinds of responses is the epistemological question they immediately raise: From where do our beliefs originate, or perhaps it's better put, how do we know what we know?

I personally think belief is the result of one of two ultimate sources: personal experience or trusted authority. Yet, responses like the ones above seem to reject both sources of knowledge, which leaves...what, exactly? If what you believe isn't founded upon your own personal experience or the account of a trusted authority, what is it based upon? If you reply, "Upon Christ Himself," you're being disingenuous, aren't you? Because what you're really saying is either (1) you've had a personal experience involving Christ or (2) you've believed what somebody else has told you (audibly or in writing) about Christ -- probably a mixture of both, I think most people would say.

According to St. Paul, faith isn't an irreducible first principle. Rather, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom 10:17) "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal 3:2,5) Before you can believe, you must have something to believe in, right? And from where do you get that something? Either from personal experience or from a trusted authority, I would argue -- unless there's some third source I'm overlooking.
How about both?

Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

First we are told, then we encounter for ourselves.
I agree with you because these are the two sources of belief I mentioned: (1) Hearing or reading a trusted authority and (2) personal experience. Yet it was these two sources which were being denied above....My question is, if you deny personal experience and/or the testimony of a trusted authority as the sources upon which you base your beliefs, what's left?
I'd like to respond to that with St. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book VIII, Chapter 3):

"In point of fact, the philosophers admit that the first principles of all things are indemonstrable. So that if there is demonstration at all, there is an absolute necessity that there be something that is self-evident, which is called primary and indemonstrable. Consequently all demonstration is traced up to indemonstrable faith."

Everything, excepting first principles, is based on something else. Without first principles, we would fall into infinite regress. Both personal experience and trusted testimony can be - and often are - challenged. Only faith which is itself the first principle, based upon nothing else, is unable to be overcome.

This is why I am always amazed at questions like, "If someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ did not rise from the dead, would your faith be shaken?" Such a position places far, far too much emphasis on the faculty of reason -- an emphasis which I would contend is foreign to the mind of the Orthodox Church. Did not Christ say, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3)? The author of Hebrews writes, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). Faith is its own evidence, and as such, it is not shaken by various and sundry claims and "proofs," since it is not based upon claims and proofs to begin with.
But faith in what? That's what I'm asking here. If you're not basing your faith on either personal experience or trusted testimony, what is your basis for faith?

"If someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ did not rise from the dead, would your faith be shaken?" is a valid question, to which I would suggest that any sane Christian would have to answer, "Yes, absolutely, because if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then everything I believe is based on a lie!" Now, you could also respond that there is no way one could reasonably prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, but that's avoiding the question rather than answering it.

How does Matthew 18:3 have bearing on the question of epistemology? All this means is that children tend to accept what they're told by their parents without question because they trust their parents to do what's best for them. And why do they trust this? Usually because that's been their experience up to that point. However, if a child experiences abuse up to that point, he or she will not have that trust because that trust hasn't been formed through the child's personal experience of loving parental behavior.

I'm sorry, but it really sounds to me like you're talking nonsense when you say, "Faith is its own evidence, and as such, it is not shaken by various and sundry claims and 'proofs,' since it is not based upon claims and proofs to begin with." Faith is nothing without an object of faith. What is that object of faith, and through what means have you come to know that object of faith?
Radiowaves pass through your body without you having any tangible experience of them. But a radio is able to pick them up. The same is with perception of God, and communion with Christ. He is there, and by grace our hearts are opened to know Him to varying degrees, an ontological knowledge, not a mere psychological knowledge. If you have not personally experienced this faculty of the heart, then you have no ability to comment on it as one ignorant. And it is ludicrous to try to get someone to explain the mysteries of the heart in language that is not compatible with it, just as it is hard to describe color to someone who is blind.
Good point Andrew! Yes, once again here we see the problem of "language/speech" as we attempt to communicate such things as color to someone who is blind.
...personal experience, in my own case, which is what induced me consequently to "trust" the authority....So that's the whole recap. Sorry if it winds up looking atrocious.

So here's the main question, I guess:

What is the object (or basis) of your faith, and through what means did you come to know that object (or basis)?

[Matthew Namee]

I'm moving this over from the Noah's Flood thread...


But faith in what? That's what I'm asking here. If you're not basing your faith on either personal experience or trusted testimony, what is your basis for faith?
Faith is in Christ, his cross and resurrection. There is a difference between the object of faith and the basis of faith. The object is that in which we have faith: Christ. The basis is the foundation upon which that faith is built, or the source of that faith. My faith is not based on anything. It is, as St. Clement said, the indemonstrable first principle. Otherwise, it is based on something else, and that on which it is based is higher than the faith itself. What, if I may ask, is your faith based on? You suggest experience and testimony. But what are those based on? Your own perceptions, historical evidence, surviving texts, etc., no? All of those things are supremely fallible. And what are those based on? And so forth.


But it's a valid question, to which I would suggest that any sane Christian would have to answer, "Yes, absolutely, because if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then everything I believe is based on a lie!" Now, you could also respond that there is no way one could reasonably prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, but that's avoiding the question rather than answering it.
I do not agree that it is a valid question for an Orthodox Christian. Can you prove your own existence beyond any doubt? Perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, but not beyond any doubt at all. There are people on this earth who see and hear things which do not exist. Amputees can "feel" limbs which have been cut off, yet their "experience" is not an accurate barometer of reality. Our conception of reality is based upon our willingness to accept the probability that what we think we see is in fact real. Likewise with testimony: we are trusting in the legitimacy of the evidence which survives, but how do we truly know that said evidence is reliable? We don't: we accept the high probability that it is reliable. The very concept of "fact" is actually a conclusion based upon evidence and presuppositions. Maybe the presuppositions are reasonable, but they themselves are not demonstrable. Can you prove, truly prove, that the keyboard on which you type actually exists? I challenge you to do so. Do you see what I am trying to speak of, these first principles? Faith is the first principle for the Christian believer, and it therefore cannot be demonstrated by anything else, since nothing else is higher than it.


How does this verse have bearing on the question of epistemology? All this means is that children tend to accept what they're told by their parents without question because they trust their parents to do what's best for them. And why do they trust this? Usually because that's been their experience up to that point. However, if a child experiences abuse up to that point, he or she will not have that trust because that trust hasn't been formed through the child's personal experience of loving parental behavior.
Take for instance an infant. No, better, take a zygote, which we Orthodox Christians hold to be a true and full human being, body and soul. Does that child have faith? Can he? He has no reason; he has no parents who have yet told him anything and he has no known sensory experiences from which to draw rational conclusions concerning faith. Yet I believe that it is consistent with the mind of the Orthodox Church to assert that that child is indeed capable of faith. It is not based upon anything at all.


I'm sorry, but it really sounds to me like you're talking nonsense here. Faith is nothing without an object of faith. What is that object of faith, and through what means have you come to know that object of faith?
I believe you have misunderstood me. As I said above, faith certainly has an object, and that object is Jesus Christ. I have come to know him through the Scriptures and through the Eucharist. But my faith in him is based, that is, dependant, on nothing but itself. It is not irrational, but it is non-rational in that it does not depend on reason or sensory perception.

PLEASE forgive my extremely long post!

[Herman Blaydoe]

Faith = Trust
To me, faith is another word for trust. I have faith/trust that the sun will rise again tomorrow, because it hasn't failed to do so since I have become aware of it. I have faith/trust that my wife loves me and will stand by me, because she has not failed me. I have faith/trust that the testimony of the Church is true, because despite my best efforts, I have not found it to be false. I have faith/trust in the ongoing relationship that I have with my God and my "faith community". It IS experiential. I won't go on about my own experience, that is between me and God, but I certainly TRUST in His existence, and it is not simply because somebody told me so.

Some have encountered God directly, some have been knocked off their horses, others have encountered Him through first hearing the Gospel and then learning for themselves through their own experiences, just as the Samaritans did.

Herman the Pooh

[M. Partyka]

Faith is in Christ, his cross and resurrection. There is a difference between the object of faith and the basis of faith. The object is that in which we have faith: Christ. The basis is the foundation upon which that faith is built, or the source of that faith. My faith is not based on anything. It is, as St. Clement said, the indemonstrable first principle. Otherwise, it is based on something else, and that on which it is based is higher than the faith itself.If your faith in Christ isn't based on anything, then how do you respond to the question, "Why do you have faith in Christ?" Or, perhaps looking at the question from a more evangelical perspective, how do you respond to the question, "Why should I have faith in Christ?" (I think this is a valid question given that St. Peter tells us in 1 Pet 3:15 to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.")


What, if I may ask, is your faith based on? You suggest experience and testimony. But what are those based on? Your own perceptions, historical evidence, surviving texts, etc., no? All of those things are supremely fallible. And what are those based on? And so forth.Would you go so far as to say that even Scripture and Tradition are supremely fallible?


I do not agree that it is a valid question for an Orthodox Christian. Can you prove your own existence beyond any doubt? Perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, but not beyond any doubt at all.You are correct. There is no guarantee that a person will give up a strongly-held belief even if confronted with mountains of evidence. (Just look at all the JFK conspiracy theorists, for example.)


Our conception of reality is based upon our willingness to accept the probability that what we think we see is in fact real. Likewise with testimony: we are trusting in the legitimacy of the evidence which survives, but how do we truly know that said evidence is reliable? We don't: we accept the high probability that it is reliable. The very concept of "fact" is actually a conclusion based upon evidence and presuppositions. Maybe the presuppositions are reasonable, but they themselves are not demonstrable....Do you see what I am trying to speak of, these first principles?Yes, and I think I agree with you.


Faith is the first principle for the Christian believer, and it therefore cannot be demonstrated by anything else, since nothing else is higher than it.This is where I feel things get off track, though. I think I understand where you're going, but I'm not sure I like the conclusions to which you're leading.

Take the JFK conspiracy buff example: You can present this person with mountains of evidence that Lee Oswald shot Kennedy without any help from any outside agency, but along with all the evidence, I gather from what you've been trying to tell me about first principles is that there is a first principle missing from the equation which allows the conspiracy buff to retain his beliefs. That missing first principle is a willingness to believe, and it is this willingness or openness to believing that you are calling "faith". Am I correct in this interpretation?


Take for instance an infant. No, better, take a zygote, which we Orthodox Christians hold to be a true and full human being, body and soul. Does that child have faith? Can he? He has no reason; he has no parents who have yet told him anything and he has no known sensory experiences from which to draw rational conclusions concerning faith. Yet I believe that it is consistent with the mind of the Orthodox Church to assert that that child is indeed capable of faith. It is not based upon anything at all.If by faith you mean the openness or willingness to believe, then I can see how an infant could possess this quality. Our beliefs are generally defined and hemmed in by the more foundational beliefs we hold, so an infant who lacks any bias in his her thinking would naturally be born in a state of faith (although I'm not sure the Orthodox faith teaches this -- maybe a priest could help us out here).


...faith certainly has an object, and that object is Jesus Christ. I have come to know him through the Scriptures and through the Eucharist. But my faith in him is based, that is, dependant, on nothing but itself. It is not irrational, but it is non-rational in that it does not depend on reason or sensory perception.I guess I find it difficult to conceive of faith minus a reason for that faith. I find myself willing to believe all sorts of things, but it is not simply because I possess that willingness to believe that I choose to exercise that willingness upon every possible article of faith, religious or otherwise, that comes along. Generally I come to hold a new belief because I've been exposed to enough evidence that I no longer find it possible to reject that belief in good conscience. If the evidence that originally convinced me were to come into serious question, however, I do not believe it would be in good conscience for me to cling to the belief I had once been so thoroughly convinced of unless further compelling evidence had come to me since my initial acceptance of the belief to undergird my faith in that precept which I had adopted. In a sense, I can understand that a faith supported by one pillar of evidence can remain suspended when that pillar is removed only if there is another pillar which has stepped in beneath it, acting as a supplement. Am I being clear? Does this sound at all reasonable?

[M. Partyka]

Faith = Trust
To me, faith is another word for trust. I have faith/trust that the sun will rise again tomorrow, because it hasn't failed to do so since I have become aware of it. I have faith/trust that my wife loves me and will stand by me, because she has not failed me. I have faith/trust that the testimony of the Church is true, because despite my best efforts, I have not found it to be false. I have faith/trust in the ongoing relationship that I have with my God and my "faith community". It IS experiential. I won't go on about my own experience, that is between me and God, but I certainly TRUST in His existence, and it is not simply because somebody told me so.

Some have encountered God directly, some have been knocked off their horses, others have encountered Him through first hearing the Gospel and then learning for themselves through their own experiences, just as the Samaritans did.I think this post excellently illustrates what my "pillars" argument was trying to convey. You appear to be saying, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that even if you had been introduced to faith in Christ through the testimony of respected authorities, your faith in Christ now rests upon much more than that testimony, such that even if you were to be shown evidence that the testimony you initially received was false or misleading, your faith in Christ would still survive because of all the experiential evidence you've gained since the beginning. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think this post excellently illustrates what my "pillars" argument was trying to convey. You appear to be saying, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that even if you had been introduced to faith in Christ through the testimony of respected authorities, your faith in Christ now rests upon much more than that testimony, such that even if you were to be shown evidence that the testimony you initially received was false or misleading, your faith in Christ would still survive because of all the experiential evidence you've gained since the beginning. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, that is correct. Although I have also stated what sort of thing would cause me to lose that Faith. After all we cannot have a proper hypothesis/theory/faith/theology if we cannot define that which would be necessary in order to prove it false.

[Mary]

I guess I find it difficult to conceive of faith minus a reason for that faith.

Faith always has a reason, especially if you're used to using your mind, to think and analyze and test and question and figure things out. The final Reason is made up of intellectual and experiential stuff, which probably varies from individual to individual. But, most important, is the God factor.... the wisdom of God appears to be foolishness to the world. So, whatever seems to be of utmost certainty to me, will seem to be totally hogwash to someone, who doesn't have the same faith that I do. In the same way, the logic of a person without faith, is utter foolishness to me, even if it's pure logic with no shred of opinions and biases.

that's how I see it - and that is why, no amount of evidence will be able to shake my faith in my God. I know what I know. And no one can change my mind.

mary.

[Owen Jones]

Excuse me but faith is a virtue. Therefore, it is an action, not just a state of mind, and is not dependent on having one's belief sorted out first. The consequences are that if I have faith, I do not live my life for worldly things only. I orient my life and my actions toward God, to please God, not so much to please other people, or do things that will make me more popular and accepted according to worldly standards. Other things that naturally flow from faith are the courage to persevere when suffering serious problems or setbacks, having a generally joyful outlook about life, not being depressed or negative about my lot in the world. One does not wait to have faith until all of one's theological questions have been answered, or there is proof of God's existence. In fact, faith, and its consequences, are the proof that God exists. It has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemology. If I lack faith, or if I want faith that I do not have, I find someone who does have faith, and I follow his example. I do the things that he does, not expecting instant results, or demanding some reason to do it, other than the person who has faith obviously has some power that I lack, and I am attracted to that person and want to attach myself to that person so that I can learn and follow his example, in order to have the things that he has. Right belief is a consequence of right action, with faith being the virtue that leads into the rest, beginning, of course, with hope and love. Hope of course, is not an expectation of a better tomorrow if I am being a good person, but hope is the confidence that God's promises hold true in eternity, and love is first and foremost is love of God as opposed to love of self, which is most forcefully expressed in love of other human beings, even, or especially, those who hate and despise us and mistreat us. And so if I put these virtues into practice, then and only then am I prepared to understand and commit to the theological beliefs of my Church. Of course, most of us have it just backwards. We think that we have to start by believing what we are supposed to believe. Not!

[M. Partyka]

If I lack faith, or if I want faith that I do not have, I find someone who does have faith, and I follow his example. I do the things that he does, not expecting instant results, or demanding some reason to do it, other than the person who has faith obviously has some power that I lack, and I am attracted to that person and want to attach myself to that person so that I can learn and follow his example, in order to have the things that he has.So why not attach oneself to the Dalai Lama?


Right belief is a consequence of right action....And so if I put these virtues into practice, then and only then am I prepared to understand and commit to the theological beliefs of my Church. Of course, most of us have it just backwards. We think that we have to start by believing what we are supposed to believe. Not!That's definitely counterintuitive, perhaps even contrary to Jesus' own teachings. He said, "Whoever hears my words and does them," not, "Whoever does my words will hear them." We get the precept first, and then by faith we accept it and apply it to our lives. Sure, you can emulate the good deeds of another, but that doesn't mean you're going to get the truth from that person. If the good deeds we see others do or the love we received from others were the supreme authority, how many of us would be Christians? How many of us would be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Bahai instead? How many of us would be non-Orthodox Christians? I find it difficult to swallow the notion that obedience and behavior will necessarily lead to truth. Even if you don't understand it, you at least have to know the truth before you can obey it, and that knowledge could come from example, but example is incomplete if unaccompanied by explanation. That's why it always chills me when I hear a cradle Orthodox person say something like, "I don't know why we do it. We just do" -- as if the why doesn't matter at all. Even children ask why!

[Nina]

That's why it always chills me when I hear a cradle Orthodox person say something like, "I don't know why we do it. We just do" -- as if the why doesn't matter at all. Even children ask why!

We do not have to ask why. We are in love with our God. You have to understand that for some people there need not be a reason, or an explanation about their love: they are just in love and get lost in it and that suffices. Love is beyond reason and logic for them. There is no reason to make this sound lesser because it has both faith and love.

For some others love has also an empirical side to it, like that of Apostle Thomas. This is also love.

P.S Where there is love there is no need for chills. :)

[Nina]

Even children ask why!

Just think:

Why do children ask why?!

[Mary]

I find it difficult to swallow the notion that obedience and behavior will necessarily lead to truth. Even if you don't understand it, you at least have to know the truth before you can obey it, and that knowledge could come from example, but example is incomplete if unaccompanied by explanation. That's why it always chills me when I hear a cradle Orthodox person say something like, "I don't know why we do it. We just do" -- as if the why doesn't matter at all. Even children ask why!

Nina nailed it. It's love. Love needs no reason to obey. Love doesn't need to wait for full understanding or even partial understanding, before doing, because love trusts completely. There's always room to ask questions, but there's great joy in just abandoning yourself to the One you trust, and just obey. After all, who can know the Mind of God and understand it all?

Since our goal is Love and not knowledge, obedience and behavior, does lead to Love. At my present state, my obedience and my behavior isn't perfect, because my love is imperfect. My obedience, will increase my love, and my love will then strengthen my obedience. Ah, that's the life. I wish it were as easy as writing it down.

As for example and explanation, example is greater. Explanation, is just words. But example is real. You know what a person truly believes by how he lives. It's easier to do something, when the person telling you, shows you how to do it, by actually doing it himself. You cannot teach humility with words, nor can you teach forgiveness, or love, or faith or trust, joy, peace, kindness, patience, etc. For such things, words are too inadequate.

gotta run. Do not listen to me. I talk too much.

In Christ,
mary.

[Matthew Namee]

If your faith in Christ isn't based on anything, then how do you respond to the question, "Why do you have faith in Christ?" Or, perhaps looking at the question from a more evangelical perspective, how do you respond to the question, "Why should I have faith in Christ?" (I think this is a valid question given that St. Peter tells us in 1 Pet 3:15 to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.")
I need to think about this question and respond later.


Would you go so far as to say that even Scripture and Tradition are supremely fallible?
This depends on what you mean. My word choice was probably poor... I may be wrong, but "infallibility" isn't exactly an Orthodox concept, at least not in the sense that it's often understood in Western culture. In any case, I would say that the texts which have come down to us are certainly fallible. This seems to me to be obvious -- there are discrepancies between one manuscript and another, for instance. Likewise those individuals in the Church who carry on the tradition are quite capable of error. But I would say that the mind of the Church, which is expressed in its totality in Scripture and exegeted by tradition, is not fallible because it is not human nor is it even created. As it is from God, it is not subject to error, but the actual paper and papyrus and so forth, the scribes, the inks -- these things are not always reliable.


That missing first principle is a willingness to believe, and it is this willingness or openness to believing that you are calling "faith". Am I correct in this interpretation?
No... You're still operating with the brain. Faith is not in the brain. It is not psychological, mental, intellectual (in the common sense), emotional, rational (again, in the common understanding of the term), etc. To use an Orthodox concept, it is "noetic." It is a spiritual gift, a virtue, as opposed to something connected to the mind/brain.


I guess I find it difficult to conceive of faith minus a reason for that faith. I find myself willing to believe all sorts of things, but it is not simply because I possess that willingness to believe that I choose to exercise that willingness upon every possible article of faith, religious or otherwise, that comes along. Generally I come to hold a new belief because I've been exposed to enough evidence that I no longer find it possible to reject that belief in good conscience. If the evidence that originally convinced me were to come into serious question, however, I do not believe it would be in good conscience for me to cling to the belief I had once been so thoroughly convinced of unless further compelling evidence had come to me since my initial acceptance of the belief to undergird my faith in that precept which I had adopted. In a sense, I can understand that a faith supported by one pillar of evidence can remain suspended when that pillar is removed only if there is another pillar which has stepped in beneath it, acting as a supplement. Am I being clear? Does this sound at all reasonable?
We're sort of talking past each other, I think. I am drawing a distinction between "faith" (which is a noetic virtue) and "belief" (which is an intellectual conclusion). Faith itself is "evidence" or "assurance." It is not based on evidence, since it is itself the evidence.

M. Partyka, how do you respond to the quotation from St. Clement above? What are your first principles, if not faith? Eventually, as you go back through the principles, do you not reach a point where you say "I cannot prove such-and-such; I simply believe it"? An example: someone believes because of experience. That experience is based on perception. That perception is based on, let us say, senses. How do you know that your senses are accurate? Aren't you putting "faith" in your senses?

And texts: Sure, some people "believe" because of the testimony in the New Testament. But they are reading a copy which was printed by a publisher, translated by some people, using a body of Greek manuscripts, the authenticity of which is determined by various tests. And the manuscripts -- how do you know, really KNOW, that they are accurate? How do you know that they are based on first-century documents? How do you know -- and so on, and so forth. In the end, if you go back far enough, your entire worldview must rest on unproven assumptions. You must believe in them simply for their own sake. Maybe you believe in them because they "feel" right. But then you are just believing in your feelings, which themselves cannot be "proven." Do you see where I am going with this? EVERYTHING, in the end, is based on some kind of faith. The faith of the Christian must be in Christ. Others place faith in reason, in their senses, in their emotions. But whatever your first principle is, it cannot be based on anything else, or it would not be a first principle but rather the thing on which it is based would be the first principle.

I'm talking a lot... I apologize for being unable to get across my point in a coherent and concise manner.

[Matthew Namee]

After all we cannot have a proper hypothesis/theory/faith/theology if we cannot define that which would be necessary in order to prove it false.
Wait... this sounds like its own hypothesis. I have four questions:

1) How do you define "proper hypotheis"?
2) How do you know that the sentence above is true?
3) How could such a hypothesis be disproven?
4) If you could disprove it, wouldn't the disproving be its own hypothesis?

I'm probably taking this way too seriously, but I thought I'd ask...

[M. Partyka]

Why do children ask why?!Heh...because they aren't satisfied with, "Because I said so!" Good point.

[Nina]

Heh...because they aren't satisfied with, "Because I said so!" Good point.

What you say is the worst scenario.

There is always an explanation from a caring parent, from a loving mother and father. Even more so from our sweet Mother, the Church.

When some people ask me 'why I am in love with my non-Orthodox fiance?' (because they think that it will be too much of a headache for a future life together) I tell them simply that 'I am in love with him'.

These people although they mean it well, they do not know, they can not understand my love in this case. They are not trained in my experience. I, on the other hand, do not rationalize/think the way they do, because I am in love. Now multiply that with infinite and you will understand somehow what love for God does. It produces saints. These all are our Mother, the Church, Who in a caring way watches over us, explains to us and gives us lots of advise.

[M. Partyka]

What are your first principles, if not faith? Eventually, as you go back through the principles, do you not reach a point where you say "I cannot prove such-and-such; I simply believe it"? An example: someone believes because of experience. That experience is based on perception. That perception is based on, let us say, senses. How do you know that your senses are accurate? Aren't you putting "faith" in your senses?

And texts: Sure, some people "believe" because of the testimony in the New Testament. But they are reading a copy which was printed by a publisher, translated by some people, using a body of Greek manuscripts, the authenticity of which is determined by various tests. And the manuscripts -- how do you know, really KNOW, that they are accurate? How do you know that they are based on first-century documents? How do you know -- and so on, and so forth. In the end, if you go back far enough, your entire worldview must rest on unproven assumptions. You must believe in them simply for their own sake. Maybe you believe in them because they "feel" right. But then you are just believing in your feelings, which themselves cannot be "proven." Do you see where I am going with this? EVERYTHING, in the end, is based on some kind of faith. The faith of the Christian must be in Christ. Others place faith in reason, in their senses, in their emotions. But whatever your first principle is, it cannot be based on anything else, or it would not be a first principle but rather the thing on which it is based would be the first principle.I used to have a set of "first principles" which I relied upon. I don't know if I can trust them anymore because the conclusion to which they led me, though entirely rational, turned out not to match the reality. Once I learned what was the reality, nothing really made sense anymore. Things still don't make sense. I'd like to go the experiential route, but I don't trust myself to be able to discern truth from error now, and I'm afraid that my experiences will lead me away from the Church and off into a spiritualist la-la land.

[Andrew]

I used to have a set of "first principles" which I relied upon. I don't know if I can trust them anymore because the conclusion to which they led me, though entirely rational, turned out not to match the reality. Once I learned what was the reality, nothing really made sense anymore. Things still don't make sense. I'd like to go the experiential route, but I don't trust myself to be able to discern truth from error now, and I'm afraid that my experiences will lead me away from the Church and off into a spiritualist la-la land.

Logic, epistemology, and experience are all born of man's limited psychological understanding of true being. When the nous enters the heart and experiences Truth in communion with God, Who is the I Am, man enters true reality. He moves past the psychological state of the abstract and impure mind to the unity of clear comprehension in God. This is Knowledge from on High that has been passed down through the generations of the Saints. Christ and His Saints are trying to bring us out of our psychological delusion into true being, true sight, true Love. Logic and rationality are tools of the nous, but they are not the thing in itself. Your problem (and mine) is that our nous is attached to our rationality instead of our heart. If your mind descends to the heart, then the problems of logical reasons for faith seem very silly, because you have come to know the truth firsthand as an eyewitness.

[Nina]

Logic, epistemology, and experience are all born of man's limited psychological understanding of true being. When the nous enters the heart and experiences Truth in communion with God, Who is the I Am, man enters true reality. He moves past the psychological state of the abstract and impure mind to the unity of clear comprehension in God. This is Knowledge from on High that has been passed down through the generations of the Saints. Christ and His Saints are trying to bring us out of our psychological delusion into true being, true sight, true Love. Logic and rationality are tools of the nous, but they are not the thing in itself. Your problem (and mine) is that our nous is attached to our rationality instead of our heart. If your mind descends to the heart, then the problems of logical reasons for faith seem very silly, because you have come to know the truth firsthand as an eyewitness.

This is very high quality spiritual lesson.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Wait... this sounds like its own hypothesis. I have four questions:

1) How do you define "proper hypotheis"?
2) How do you know that the sentence above is true?
3) How could such a hypothesis be disproven?
4) If you could disprove it, wouldn't the disproving be its own hypothesis?

I'm probably taking this way too seriously, but I thought I'd ask...

1) a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation.

2 What is "true"? The first sentence merely constitutes a generally agreed to assumption.

3) Through the also generally accepted scientific method, which requires that for something to be tested, the parameters that would prove it false be defined. To evaluate something requires an agreement of HOW it is to be evaluated, that is, all the evaluation parameters must be defined.

4) That is indeed the problem that arises in most polemical discussions, but it is certainly the basis of the scientific method. IF you CAN disprove something, then it obviously not a good hypothesis and must be rejected or modified into a more defendable one. If it cannot be disproved, then it remains a viable hypothesis, but at least you know WHY it remains such, because the parameters that prove it false have not been met.

It certainly should be noted that the scientific method, which is very useful for examining God's creation since He created it in a consistent and apparently rules-based manner, is of very limited use for discussions about God Himself, since He exists outside of His creation and the rules that He created. So use what I have posted very advisedly. I am not using it to explain God Himself in any manner, but merely my approach to explaining my faith and why I believe what I believe because that is the way I was trained. Your mileage may vary. Caveat emptor, etc.

Herman the systems engineer

[Mary]

I used to have a set of "first principles" which I relied upon. I don't know if I can trust them anymore because the conclusion to which they led me, though entirely rational, turned out not to match the reality. Once I learned what was the reality, nothing really made sense anymore. Things still don't make sense. I'd like to go the experiential route, but I don't trust myself to be able to discern truth from error now, and I'm afraid that my experiences will lead me away from the Church and off into a spiritualist la-la land.


You don't have to be afraid of being led away from the Church. God promises that the one who seeks, will find. When you knock, the door will be opened. He's not intimidated by your unbelief, neither is He incapable of giving you proof - which is faith. As Matthew said above, Faith is the evidence, it is the assurance of things unseen.

So, throw yourself at His mercy. Like the father, who brought his son to Jesus for healing, and still had his doubts, say: "Lord I believe! Help me overcome my unbelief!" Seems like contradictory statements, but it's the simple truth.

And don't for a moment think that once your present doubts are cleared up, that you'll never face doubts again. It's just a normal cycle that you go through. There will always be doubts. There will always be questions. There will always be need for more explanations. So, you keep seeking, keep asking, keep knocking, and you'll keep finding what you look for. Not always in the way you expect it, but then, God likes to love us and surprise us. =)

In Christ,
Mary.

[Matthew Namee]

It certainly should be noted that the scientific method, which is very useful for examining God's creation since He created it in a consistent and apparently rules-based manner, is of very limited use for discussions about God Himself, since He exists outside of His creation and the rules that He created. So use what I have posted very advisedly. I am not using it to explain God Himself in any manner, but merely my approach to explaining my faith and why I believe what I believe because that is the way I was trained. Your mileage may vary. Caveat emptor, etc.
Okay, I see that you meant "hypothesis" in the scientific sense, while I took it in the philosophical sense. I don't think that faith is in any way akin to a scientific hypothesis. I still appeal to the concept of first principles and the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria. Something has to exist completely on its own, independent and without either proof or the possibility of being disproven.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Okay, I see that you meant "hypothesis" in the scientific sense, while I took it in the philosophical sense. I don't think that faith is in any way akin to a scientific hypothesis. I still appeal to the concept of first principles and the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria. Something has to exist completely on its own, independent and without either proof or the possibility of being disproven.

Perhaps, but why can't it be the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster)? Something can certainly exist outside our ability to be aware of its existence. That is why it is impossible to "prove" that something does not or cannot exist. But perhaps we are simply talking past each other.

[Owen Jones]

Before engaging in a serious discussion "epistemology," I would suggest reading THE PARMENEDES, THE THEAETETUS, THE SOPHIST, and THE STATESMAN.

[Matthew Namee]

Perhaps, but why can't it be the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster)? Something can certainly exist outside our ability to be aware of its existence. That is why it is impossible to "prove" that something does not or cannot exist. But perhaps we are simply talking past each other.
I kind of have a tendency to talk past people, so if we're doing that, I accept all the responsibility :)