It was around nine months ago. I sat on the balcony of a penthouse in Mazatlán, Mexico overlooking the glory of the Pacific ocean. The warm night breeze caressed everyone who had the good sense to be outside. It was picture perfect. The situation was only improved by the conversation that I was having with my good friend, Rob Boden. Our dialog ranged all over the spectrum of ideas. One theme kept recurring… the distinction between our understanding/quantifying of the physical universe and our experience while we unwittingly (or otherwise…) interact with the metaphysical universe. So, this post is a hat tip to that idyllic scenario. Not to mention that our post on world view keeps massaging the same idea.
Let me begin by trying to define the terms. When I use the word “physical”, I mean the realm of our existence that pertains to our five senses. It may be quantified and analyzed. The scientific method can be used to research it. Some argue that it is comprised of objective laws, though this is debatable. En la otra mano, the word “metaphysical” has several meanings. For the purpose of this post, I intend to use it to describe those things within our experience that cannot be described in terms of the physical. Some examples are faith in the unseen, psychic phenomena and other extra sensory issues. I will primarily focus on the complex aspects that makes our species unusual. More precisely, I want to focus on what it means to be human.
We can begin by asking several questions. Does a reality outside of the scope of our sensory experience exist? If so, is it a significant factor in human existence? If not, where do the myriad stories and countless commitments to religion originate within the scope of human thought? Of course, all of what is written here is theoretical. Bear in mind that I am not educated. I am simply an observer of behavior, a dweller in the land of ideas, and a partner in the human experiment. So please take everything I say with a serious grain of salt. I appreciate all analysis and critique.
My experience and limited research leads me to several presuppositional conclusions. First, I believe that all human beings are attached by strands of common existence. In other words, when we elect to call ourselves “human beings” we mean to say that, regardless of race or culture, something immaterial makes us inherently the same. This is is stark contrast to our other title, homo sapiens. One name describes our essence, the other our physicality.
One of the things that unite human beings is a tension between the physical and the metaphysical. We all live and breathe within the sphere of the physical universe. Much like the animals we require food, shelter, and clothing. However, something sets us apart. There is an aesthetic (beauty sense) aspect to our existence. Regardless of our cultural background, we seek to improve our world. The nature of those improvements are as different as the cultural contexts that exist among humankind. Nevertheless, we have an innate sense of betterment and beauty. We have a desire to order our lives. Whereas animals appear content to live by instinct alone, we overcome and act in opposition to instinct every day. Any time we act in a manner that isn’t rooted in our own preservation sense, we demonstrate this. I submit that this unique two fold existence is what we mean by “human being” as opposed to “homo sapiens”. I further suggest that this, with all of its implications, is what is meant when the Bible declares that we are made in the “image of God”. More on that another time. These concepts cannot be borne out by science or quantified by sensory means. You can’t put faith or honor or self sacrifice in a test tube. It isn’t possible to place a video camera into the minds of those who spend their time feeding the poor or comforting the sick without reference to their personal safety or needs. This immaterial aspect of humanity has to be evaluated as something wholly other than the physical frame work within which we build our societies.
One of the significant aspects of Enlightenment ontology (beliefs about the nature of existence) and epistemology (beliefs about how we know things) is that the development of scientific method and practice flew in the face of the Medieval spiritual environment. Until the advent of 16th century humanism (a rediscovery of the creative and positive aspects of mankind), the Catholic church dominated all discussions pertaining to art, science, politics, economics, et cetera. So, everything was controlled…the Church’s spin doctors ensured that nothing innovative got hold in the populace. Those who tried to innovate (see Galileo or Copernicus for examples) were promptly persecuted.
While it was necessary to challenge the Medieval intellectual construct, Enlightenment thinkers often rebelled completely against the ideas of faith or spirituality. Those dedicated to science tended to adopt a high skepticism which became agnosticism leading to atheism. These trends gathered momentum from generation to generation. In the end, they result in the perspectives embodied in the writings of Dawkins and his crew. The idea of spirituality being a crutch that the weak minded plebes rely upon to strengthen their resolve to live pitiable little lives caught on nicely.
The sad part is that such an ideology results in a dehumanizing process. Those who hold it fail to see that it is precisely the immaterial part of humankind that makes us unique. While we don’t have to belittle science in terms of its explanation of the physical universe, to deny our spiritual selves is to deny our better half. We are not merely complicated biological systems with so many chemical processes that stimulate the illusion of independent thought. We are, in fact, the link that provides a bridge between two dimensions. In humanity, nature finds its connection to the divine. We, like Christ, exist as the incarnation of God’s image. Of course, as a Christian I recognize the intrinsic differences between us and Him. At the same time, we cannot be afraid to recognize an amazing connection to another reality that transcends, or more precisely, that defines all which we experience here.
At the end of the day we need to recognize that science contributes a lot to our understanding of the universe. It is imperative that we don’t confuse this truism with the notion that science possesses ALL or, for that matter, even MOST of the understanding within the universe. The more we learn about our surroundings, the more we see resonance with what we always knew about our selves. There is a lot more under the surface than meets the eye. The Newtonian model of the Universe (highly mechanistic and predictable due to natural processes) is being replaced by a model that shows just how little we comprehend. Science serves a purpose that is necessary. But, the worship of science is just one more religion that is ultimately moored in the metaphysical. It simply fails to answer the larger questions and will continue to do so if it ignores the two fold nature of our existence.
December 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm
“Those dedicated to science tended to adopt a high skepticism which became agnosticism leading to atheism.”
Weren’t men like Bacon and Newton attempting to understand the world in light of their belief in God? While I agree with you that ultimately science moved in the direction of atheism and many are there now (ala Dawkins and gang), some its roots were out of a belief in metaphysics -in their minds a metaphysics that produced this organized physical world that was worth studying. Maybe that’s more of a technicality, since ultimately the trajectory brought us to an atheistic look at the physical. But interestingly enough much of it started as a theistic look at the physical.
December 11, 2007 at 1:15 pm
All in all, though, a very good overview on metaphysical and physical, thanks for putting that together!
December 11, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Hey Kev,
I wasn’t attempting to indict the entire movement. Instead, I am looking at the trend that occurred. Much like the emerging concepts associated with Postmodernism today (many people are in transitional positions between Modern and Postmodern perspectives), we can find many, many examples of individuals who were in the middling position.
Take Decartes himself, for example. While he would undoubtedly say that he believed in God (even to the point of creating a flimsy ontological argument), the trajectory of his thoughts lead inexorably to the current crisis.
December 11, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I think the technical usage for physical is in relation to dimensions. Anything that operates in the four-dimensions of experience including time. This is called space-time.
I feel that I should interject as an amateur physicist. I love these sorts of conversations. This is my second love.
Here is the exact reason why we equate atheism with science. Many of you will appreciate this because it is for the same exact reason we had a reformation. The scientific community believed the Catholic Church was impeding science’s ability to render truth about the world around it. And for the most part that was true. Look at Galileo and Copernicus. Once it was able to be autonomous it moved all the way to the left. It did this so that the Church would not have any affect upon its ability to render truth. In recent years the scientific community has come under extreme pressure from mainline scientists because atheistic science has the trump card on scholarship. Anthony Flew has a great critique of this phenomenon in his most recent book. His argument against them is right on. He (and I have done this in the past) refers to the atheistic scientific community (of which Dawkins represents), dogmatic fundamentalist scientists. I have often said “they have become the thing they most despised”. That is, they have become the fundy of which they so drastically criticize. This is why Hitchens is such a moron. He actually believes that it is only through atheism that real knowledge of truth can be had. This of course means (and the reason he is a moron) that one view of fundamentalism is inherently better than another. I don’t think he really believes this, but this is what his whole argument implies. The contemporary scientific community is spiraling out of control. For example, for some reason it is ok for theoretical physicists to speculate, but not philosophers, or theologians.
Not helping the situation are the intelligent design folks (ID). Their group inevitably keeps the separation going. Now they claim they are doing science but, most of us in this blog are Christians and we know the truth and the truth is no secret. However, they continue lie about their intentions. Now here is the catch and the frustration. I believe that an intelligent creator (mind) created the universe. I believe in the bang (though Denny must refer to my qualifications for that in my email). This means I believe in intelligent design, which by the way is the major conversion factor for Flew. However, I do not associate myself with the ID people. They don’t even represent Christianity well. Case in point is the Delaware incident. Those people lied in court. They lied because they wanted so badly for ID to be taught in schools. The judge caught them in their lie and read a very impressive conclusion on his decision. To make things worse after his decision he received death threats (by Christians). This is exactly why Christians get this bad rap for being uncritical. This is exactly why the scientific community won’t embrace people of faith. What makes things worse is the judge was absolutely right in both his decision and his comments. And by the way the judge claims to be a Christian. Based on this one case the ID people will never get their way in the US.
Now the reason it makes me so mad is because some of what the ID people say is true and there needs to be reform in the public school system as it relates to the teaching of science. I firmly believe science has crossed the line in regards to their speculation in textbooks. They oftentimes claim things like the universe has an infinite past, or infinite future, (Denny refer to my email), or that the bang was just the beginning, or that there is an explanation for what is before the bang they just do not know it yet (by the way this is called promissory evolution). Anytime they say anything including infinites or anything prior to the bang they have begun to do metaphysics. They have no right because it does color how people see the world. Let us philosophers do metaphysics (even if science does not think metaphysics even exists) and let scientists do science.
Kevin, you make some interesting points on the history of science (Bacon, Newton, etc.). And I think for the most part you are correct although some points are vague. But, of course this why these people are criticized by the scientific community. They are looked at as the founding fathers of science, but they are also viewed as naive due to their historical location. But, Newton was not too far off in regards to his intentions. He was trying to do pure science, but only because he actually believed it pointed to God. And he is right it does. Now of course his theories on time, gravity, etc. were mistaken (and its unfortunate that theists oftentimes adopt his positions on time to reconcile God’s relationship to time when Newton was wrong (I digress), but his insights into the nature of Euclidian geometry and thermodynamics are very important. He began our mathematical discussion in regards to science and for his he is lauded.
In regards to materialism and truth: I have a very special theory in regards to this, but it really isn’t necessary for this discussion. I think this should be our perspective: It is the job of science to render material truth. It is the job of philosophy and religion to render immaterial truth. We must keep these separate. But, they must also work together in such a way that we don’t violate our linguistic laws. Now this is why our worldview conversation was important because it gets into the presuppositions that both groups have. Science has to realize that in order for them to claim “truth” they have to deal with their presupposition that materialism can actually render truth. Materialism is inherently contradictory because it uses the immaterial laws of logic to render materialistic truth. They oftentimes confuse “laws” with “truth”. I think the greatest example of why science must stay humble is two-fold. First, quantum physics has already shown that in many instances laws are violated through the chaos of differing dimensions. They cite as an example: “we see that in many cases effects precede their causes”. Second, if Newton was wrong why can’t Einstein be wrong? Why is science ever wrong if its method renders truth? What about Null physics. Why do many think Einstein is incorrect?
Sorry its so long I will control myself in the future, but I thought this post would be important to set up a great dynamic conversation.
December 11, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Eric, I want to start by pointing out what I see as a clear flaw in your character (having taken the leap from Aesthetic to Ethical…). You are a liar. Now, don’t get me wrong. I know you have good intentions, but let’s be honest. You will NOT control yourself in the future! You will KEEP writing long posts. You will do this because you are passionate about the issues. This, unlike your lying, is a demonstration of your character’s strength! So, please stop apologizing for that which you aren’t sorry. We aren’t sorry either.
The only down side is that I may have to print out your posts in order to ensure a thorough response. Of course, these are being compiled into a notebook which I plan to market later under a pseudonym. 
On to the topic at hand. First, I’ve received several e-mails from visitors to this site saying that the discussions are a little too deep. I am not interested in sacrificing the quality. At the same time, I am doing my best to keep things as readable as possible for those who aren’t used to this type of dialog. One of the things I am passionate about is the transference of my love for ideas! So, I will often use terminology in a limited sense. I usually try to point out when I am doing this because it is important to the interpretation of my comments that other definitions are at least accounted for.
With all of that said, the term “physical” does indeed apply to space-time. The nuances and implications of this need to be saved for another post. It gets pretty intense, as Eric knows.
Eric’s assessment of atheistic science as a competing fundamentalism is right on. This is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning known to man. It is a scary thing when humans of clearly demonstrated intellect are so blinded by their presuppositions that they can no longer see the obvious. It causes me to question my own blindness…
Pertaining to the ID folks, again, Eric and I are in agreement. The major problem I see (apart from their clear disassociation with the imitation of Christ) is that, even if intelligent design is the fairest answer for the scientific questions being asked of the universe, there is virtually no way to transition from that point to the God of the Bible or His Son, Jesus. Those “leaps” are entirely outside of reason (welcome back to SK…). They can only be made AFTER someone has accepted the propositions as facts. The clouded “science” that sets out to prove this point on the basis of “evidence” is a mockery. The horrendous lack of decency in the ID camp’s approach rivals that of the Kansas group that protests at soldiers’ funerals. It just isn’t obvious to me that the death of American soldiers is because “God hates fags”. I think the same people write the position papers for these two groups.
As far as the relationship between physics and metaphysics, I think there has to be more cross over between science and philosophy than Eric described. I am in complete agreement that science routinely slips into metaphysics, which is both unwarranted and unnatural. This is not, however, a two way street. Those of us dedicated to metaphysics must also do science if we are to describe any real representation of existence.
I agree completely on the subject of Newton and Bacon (see my earlier post). Eric, one of the areas that I’ve spent years in is precisely God’s relationship to space-time. I will e-mail you some of that work to begin dialog. I agree that Christians have misappropriated Newton to defend shady positions. I am also convinced that Einstein’s theories need some definitional tweaking. The math, though in need of further exploration, is solid in principle. However, I have significant problems with the inferences that are drawn from it.
December 11, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I have been unclear. I believe that metaphysics and physics are on the same line (to use a visual). They both fade into each other. There is never any hardcore cut seperating the two. Outside of single dimensional thought (the line analogy) I believe their is a deepness to the immaterial (metaphysical or unseeable) world. So think of the first point in regards to a time line. Eventually when you move the universe backwards to its point of origin you get to metaphysics. The second point refers to the air you are starring at. Looking at the air is to look at the deepness of other dimensions (you just cannot perceive it due to light restrictions and other complicated issues). But, if you were able to look at it and you began to pull back the layers of physical dimensions you would eventually get to metaphysics. All of this to say that when the math fails or you begin to move outside of the material you have to give up your langauge-game and use another.
I hope that is clearer. See I told you I could do it.
December 12, 2007 at 2:19 am
The things of which Denny and Eric are going back and forth on are definitely pools of though in which I have never dove in that deep. I think you guys are jumping in the deep end and I’ve just figured out how to wade in up to my ankles! I just need to find some time to do some more reading (speaking of reading, sometime Denny you need to email me your work on the relationship between God and space-time, I know we’ve had conversations about it before, but its been awhile… no a long time!!!).
Anyhow, as I’ve been reading it seems to me the difficulty comes in how the physical can understand the metaphysical, as well as the degree to which that is possible. Eric I believe you were saying that this is the job of philosophy and religion as opposed to science. Does this mean science should stick with physical understanding physical?
So as far as philosophy is concerned, from what I’ve gathered SK (representing existentialism) said it must be the leap of faith that allows one to find a presuppositional starting base from which to formulate anything, since we cannot know anything until we are there (experience?). Is this the postmodern standpoint on how the physical has any ability to understand the metaphysical? My thought is this is where the language game becomes problematic because everyone has a different presuppositional starting base and thus a different “language.”
Obviously the modern scientific fundy (of which has been spoken earlier) tries to postulate metaphysical understanding from physical knowledge, which seems problematic at best and impossible at worst since as we have already discussed the finite cannot grasp the infinite, etc.
After looking (very briefly) at the philosophic and scientific (well my very short and I’m sure not entirely correct examination of those areas) answers to the problem I postulated, my question is: what would be the religious point of view as the way that the physical can understand the metaphysical, and to what degree this is possible. Or does this presuppose a gulf between religion and philosophy when Eric you might have been “lumping” them somewhat together?
Please feel free to shred my comment to pieces (but remember, you’re talking to a ankle swimmer when you’re diving off the deep end) if necessary. Just trying to summarize and keep conversation going as best as I can… hey I am another moderator on this blog here!
December 12, 2007 at 4:37 am
Yes, you assertion about me thinking that the physical interprets the physical is true. Science has no place in metaphysics and vice versa. Denny noted that he thinks that my proposition is incorrect or slightly flawed.
About SK you are correct although I have difficulty with the word presupposition as attributed to SK in that context. But, the essence of what you are saying is true. Let me VERY BRIEFLY sum up what we are talking about in regards to SK. As Denny pointed out I have unfairly assumed too much from my readers. SK blieved that the journey every person was part of had three identifiable stages. (by the way the three stages are also a subtle gun shot against the Hegel’s dialectic.) 1) The Aesthetic: for SK this means the pleasures of life. It means making decisions based on passion and not logic. Most people begin in this stage. And most people in this stage are young. 2) Next, SK proposed the Ethical stage. Here he believes that when a person gets married (not an official marker, but an example) they tend to think through things more thoroughly. Most of their decisions are not based on pleasure but on what is right or wrong. For SK nearly every person who has ever lived dies in this state because it is the most sensible. 3) Finally, SK proposed the religous stage. Here he notes that only a small amount of people actually exist in this stage. And I am not sure (maybe Denny knows), but I don’t think these at all apply to salvation because SK believed he had not yet reached the religious stage. This stage is the one where the Christian lives, breaths, and finds his being. He “exists” there. Think of the mystics and their idea of ascent. Its similar. Finally, to prove his thesis and illustrate the leap of faith, he uses the story of Abraham in Isaac. He says for the Hegelian (those in the ethical stage) the story is absolutely obsurd. The proper decision is to ignore God because it is unethical to sacrafice your son. It also defies what God would put in place as his law, which in turn is a contradiction of character. So it cannot be that you have heard God correctly. SK claims that Abraham was in the religious stage due to his action. That is, Abraham took the leap of faith into the religious stage even though it was both obsurd and nonsensical to do so. However, in doing so we find the greater truth of the story, which otherwise would have never been known had Abraham not taken the leap.
I hope this not only helps Kevin, but anyone else who wants to join the conversation and does not have the context of Kierkeaard.
I have also made a mistake in not being clear on the differences between what I hold as true and what postmodernism does. I have used too many different names and not qualified. Wittgenstein is oftentimes associated with secular postmodernism (in the line of Nitzsche). However, it is somewhat unfair because Wittgenstein was very unique and really his own person. Christian postmoderns oftentimes associate themselves with SK. I add to my postmodernism Wittgenstein, which many other Christians do as well. But Wittgenstein and SK really have nothing to do with each other. They are doing two different things. So in regards to your question about presuppositions I say that Wittgenstein helps that issue although he doesn’t really care about the idea of presuppositions per se. He says: in order for us to communicate to one another and make sense (and by this he merely means to advance dialogue not I don’t understand you) we must all have the same rules (the rules for how we engage one another and the rules for what we mean when we say certain things). These rules are established through the language game or you might say through the community or worldview shared among those in dialogue. Now Wittgenstein rejected religion through his rejection of metaphysics. He said there is no langauge that can exist for metaphysics (but thats for another time). Its important to mention because I use what he invented (language-games) and apply it to metaphysics (becasue I believe he was wrong in eliminating it. He had capitulated to physicalism). All of this to say that when I use Wittgenstein in this conversation its mostly my representation of him. My facts about him are true, but I, along with many others, have taken is great idea about the use of language and applied it to other areas. Now that Wittgenstein is explained what I mean when I use him in this conversation is this: Religion (and more specifically Christianity), science, philosophy, etc., are each their own language game. They all develop their own hermeneutics or rules for interpretation and dialogue. When science invokes materialism they do so under the rules they have established for their community. If I want to engage them about science in order for our dialogue to adavance (make sense) I must follow the communities rules. Now I can challenge them on their rules, but only as a temporary member of their worldview. The same is true for them. They cannot say “prove to me that God exists”. That makes no sense to me in my worldview. I could say “I know he exists because I exist in his presence.” of course they respond “I want physical proof, if he exists why does he not just show up” I say “you mean you want me to prove to you by using materialism and immaterial God? Tell me in what sort of way could I go about doing that?” This is just an example of the types of things I am talking about. I hope all of this makes sense and I have explained some of the more enigamtic portions of our conversation.
I know you posed good honest questions of which I have not directly answered. But, I am in hopes that my exposition has presented my position and thus clarified your questions. However, feel free to inquire further.
December 12, 2007 at 5:54 am
Kevin, I did forget to answer one of your concerns, which upon further reflection is good. I think you are asking (correct me if I am wrong) if say I am postmodern and you are modern (not sure if thats true) how is it that we can dialogue based on having different language games? Is this what you are saying? I know you were also asking about science and such, but I think I answer that part. But, if you are asking this question its an interesting one. If you are not well then I will just talk to myself. In my conversations with people (see the other blog as I interact with Keith) I try to make sure I am on the same page with the other person so we are talking the same game. A good example of this is my attempt in this blog and in the other to summarize the thought of SK, Barth, Postmodernism, etc., so that we are all speaking the same game. But, I think out conversations uniquely illustrate what Wittgenstein is saying, which is when you don’t share the same game and you use different rules it results in nonsense (the inability for the dialogue to progress).
December 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Eric… you’ve done a good job at discussing some of the points I’ve discussed. Let me clarify something… I’m not sure I’d call myself a modern (although sometimes you can’t see things about yourself), but I am also not sure I can say I am postmodern either. I guess I’ve always viewed myself as someone who desires to live and know things in truth, whatever that may mean.
In my mentioning the language game I was attempting to see if I have correctly understood how that fits in with SK (since what I believe is postmodernism both often relates to SK as well as language games). So I was attempting to see if I found the tie between the two, not to set up a barrier between modern and postmodern strictly speaking.
The last question I had referred to religion. It seems to me that science speaks to physical, philosophy to metaphysical, so what does that leave religion? I guess I’ve seen religion as the metaphysical speaking to the physical (maybe my Christian presuppositions are setting in here). God in the incarnation is the metaphysical relating to the physical so we can somehow grasp the metaphysical. In this way I suppose all three have different language games, not to mention the problem of Biblical revelation (metaphysical going through the physical to relate the metaphysical) on the Christian religion side.
The main jist of my comment was to try and get at what I perceived to be the heart of the problem, how does physical understand metaphysical (and to what degree). I guess I see this as the heart possibly out of my presuppositions that we all must know God (experience, understand, relate, etc.) in truth. How (philosophically speaking) then is this possible when we are finite and he is infinite?
Thanks for your explanation of SK and Wittgenstien, very helpful for someone who hasn’t read much of their work. It helps me to understand where you are coming from.
December 12, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Kevin,
good questions. Religion speaks to the metaphysical. Remember when talking about these issues they are all really surriounding one theme – truth. You can’t believe in two different worldviews version of what is true. You either buy into the material or immaterial view. However, that does not mean by accepting one you have eliminated the other. Think of it in this way: we are all human and so have one common language game. Now think of that one language broken into various other language games, which help to form our idenitites and our understanding of reality. This is because at some point we ALL have to put in and place our bet in regards to truth (Pascal). All this to say I look to science to inform my views on materialism, but at any point if they tread on metaphysical ground I revert to the metaphysical worldview. The bottom line is that physical and metaphysical are two different things. Refer to my imaginary conversation in the previous post. If you believe I am wrong (like most scientist do), then you have to agree that I should be able to provide physical proof that God exists. This is exactly why I presented the question: what sort of physical proof is possible for an immaterial God?
I was not suggesting you were modern I was just using you as a character for the conversation. By the way you do sound more postmodern than modern. Postmoderns believe many different things, but openness is one major characteristic. Typically modern thinkers are rigid and have absolute positions on the issues.
December 12, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Wow. I walk away from my computer for like ten minutes, and you guys post seventeen times! How is a boy supposed to keep up?
I want to comment on each post. So, this may get a little lengthy though I think I can maintain brevity. Eric, I completely agree that at both the beginning of the universe and at the interaction between dimensions you find metaphysics. I also entirely affirm your idea that science should not tread those paths. It is certain that the physical language construct cannot support the metaphysical. However, the inverse is not necessary. To make the point that the metaphysical language game cannot come to bear upon the physical seems to create a schism within the fabric of reality. From my vantage point (and, I think, yours as well given your statements about the leap of faith requiring the addition of wisdom), once we move into the realm of the metaphysical the physical is radically redefined. We have the ability to grasp at the essence of the thing as opposed to its measurement. I am aware that this sounds distinctly Platonic. That’s not my intent. I am arguing for the fact that , while the finite cannot grasp the infinite, the finite may be perfectly beholden from “within” the dimension of the infinite.
I like Eric’s summary and usage of Wittgenstein. We are speaking of identical things when we invoke him.
I am glad to see the clarifications made regarding SK and his threefold journey. Let me expand upon the Abraham story to make my point somewhat more firmly. When Abraham makes the leap of faith, deciding against ethical consideration to obey the voice of God in slaying His son, an internal transformation takes place. Not only does Abraham move into the religious phase, thereby moving from one language-game to another (ie. physical to metaphysical), but he also gains the ability to interpret and interact with the other language-games in the light of this stage. In other words, it isn’t doesn’t appear sensible to argue that these transformations eliminate the former. They serve to illuminate the former. So, one has no hope of understanding the ethical stage from the point of view of the aesthetic, and one cannot possibly interpret the language-game of the religious stage from the ethical. However, once one moves into the religious stage, clarity is brought via this movement to all other language-games. Therefore, in the religious (metaphysical) we find an overarching metanarrative. We bind together and interpret all language-games.
December 13, 2007 at 7:37 am
Hey that’s not fair. You can’t use someone’s words against them like that. You see now I have a problem. The problem is, everything you just said makes sense. It also appears to be correct. However, (you had to know that was coming) I think we need to make a distinction. I am not convinced that “to exist in”, “to know of”, and “to speak of” should be part of the same argument. What I mean is that in the examples given and the propositions asserted it seems that you have combined all three of these into one category, which you called the metanarrative. Now I believe in the metanarrative (the overarching story of God), but I think your position requires that I have knowledge of the metanarrtive, when in fact I do not. I only know it exists, but I don’t have the right vantage point from which to view from (reality that is). I am still making claims based on my position down below, not from up above. In combining existing, knowing, and speaking we have created a sort of confusion as to our perspective. Remember, SK said that the knowledge we have of our existence (in God) is only knowledge that we are privy to. With all of that said I do believe that you were right, but I do not think that an amalgamation takes place until we reach glory. I mentioned earlier that Christ is the very amalgamation that you are now talking about. I just don’t see how we can have that birds-eye view.
Have I understood you correctly?
The only reason I do not fully agree (or maybe want to) is because it seems that your position allows someone to argue, for example, to the scientist that God created the world in 7 days despite the overwhealming evidence that his proposition is wrong. How is it a correct use of our categories to say that the chrisitan is justified in believing in such a position when in fact he really has no right to make the claim to begin with. He uses the revelation trump card. How is he correctly informing the scientist?
December 19, 2007 at 4:04 am
Sorry for the delay. If only my single responsibility were to engage in this kind of give and take… but, alas, I’ve moved out of emerging adulthood and into the full-blown, never-say-die world of big boy requirements. Perhaps a time will come when we can sell ads on this blog and retire to the ivory tower. Perhaps not.
In response to Eric’s argument against amalgamation, it is neither my intent nor a necessity to assume that such a mixture takes place in my proposition. It is obvious that perfect understanding doesn’t accompany the traveller on any phase in the journey. We probably can’t comprehend the ideological realities that form the basis for the aesthetic phase if we are living within its scope. More illumination likely accompanies the transition into the ethical. My point is not that the leap of faith provides complete understanding of the religious. Nor that it provides a perfect focus for the other stages. Now, we see as though through a glass darkly. Now, we know in part. Then (in glory) we will see completely. Then, we will know as we are known. (1 Corinth 13). It is, however, that partial knowledge that I refer to. As we come to conclusions within the ethical or religious phases (as we exist within them), we learn how to speak of them. As we learn their grammar, as it were, we begin to get a fuller (though still highly incomplete) picture of truth. Our knowledge is grossly partial. Nonetheless, it is true. It forms grid work for deeper truth. We certainly lack the bird’s eye view that Eric describes. We cannot see the forest for the trees. So, we get to know the trees; for we can indeed know them. And, in knowing them, we have a partial grasp on certitude as relates to the forest.
I understand Eric’s concern for a Christian using this line of thinking to claim that the physical must submit to the religious, even to the point of being absurd. I want to reassert a previous statement. The language-games for the physical and the religious are clearly different. While I believe that a deeper understanding of the religious clearly informs the physical, I am not arguing for a blurring or elimination of the language lines. This isn’t possible for two reasons. First, the scientist cannot understand the language-game of the religious phase at all unless he/she has taken the leap of faith themselves (see Alister McGrath). So, the Christian who makes such a faith-based claim might as well be speaking in Martian. The incompatibility entirely destroys any hope of dialog or meaningful momentum.
Second, the Christian who makes such a claim assumes perfect knowledge of the forest, when, in fact, they only know one tree. A statement like the one Eric uses as an example is laced with false confidence and certainty. So arrogance sets in, thereby indicating that the speaker may not exist within the religious phase to begin with (you’ll know them by their fruits). After all, like SK, I affirm that the imitation of Christ, especially His humility, is the most precise the demonstration of truth. The kind of dogmatism being described is the opposite of our mandate to be like the self-emptying Christ of Philippians 2.
December 19, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I agree.