James W Stark wrote:
> The troubled dialogue between Wendee and Bryan raises a philosophical
> question about the truth that we seek to communicate to each other. Their
> more complete dialogue is at the end of this comment but the concluding
> issue on truth I repeat as a quote with my comments for the reader's quick
> reference.
>
> >>>> general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
> >>>> the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
>
> Is all truth God's truth? What do we mean when we use the word, truth?
> Dictionaries get caught in circular reasoning. Is it not better to treat it
> as an undefined term and learn its meaning from the context of its use?
> This is why continued dialogue is needed to reveal the truth of our intended
> communications.
I didn't try to define the term 'truth'. But if you want to know how I was using the
term, here is a rough definition: a proposition is true if and only if it accurately
depicts reality, specifying what is in fact the case. The phrase "all truth is God's
truth" is shorthand for the claim that no truth contradicts another truth, i.e. no
religious truth contradicts a scientific truth and vice versa.
> Thus, does God create the truth of our intentions? Surely, humans have the
> creative power to create a relative truth. God, of course, would create all
> fixed truth. Then, the modifier, all, must imply a fixed truth. Every
> worldview has relative truth that is dependent on that worldview as the
> source of truth. Metaphysical naturalism seeks to project that relative
> truth into the truth of scientific evidence.
True does not necessarily mean 'eternally true'. But a relative truth is still
either true or false. No true relative truth contradicts another true relative
truth.
> >> I don't think anyone is claiming to have arrived at or soon-to-have arrived
> >> at the knowledge of all truth. So I don't know who you think needs to hear
> >>this or why they need to hear it. But it sounds like you are implying that ID
> >> proponents are not "letting go" of a desire for knowing all truth. What's
> >> wrong with a desire to know all truth? (cf. John 16:13)
>
> Bryan, surely the meaning of John 16:13 needs to be kept in an intended
> context. It can not be referring to "all" the truth that exists. Neither
> does it imply that all truth is fixed making it accessible to discovery
> through science. Some truth is revealed and untestable. We use our personal
> free will to create relative truth.
I didn't claim any of these things about this verse. Whatever domain of truth is
being referred to in this verse, it is a good thing for us to desire to know all of
it. Therefore, without contrary imperatives, it would be ad hoc to say that in other
domains, it is immoral to desire to know all truth. Similarly, there is nothing
unethical about desiring to know all goodness, and desiring to experience all
beauty. If Augustine is correct, God has placed those very desires in us, for such
desires find their ultimate fulfillment in Him. My point is that there is no ethical
grounds for condemning a desire to know all truth.
> When is it justifiable to use revealed truth in our interpretations?
It is always justifiable to use revealed truth in our interpretation of evidence in
other domains. Why wouldn't it be?? The important thing is that the *truth* (and not
a false interpretation) of special revelation is used in our interpretation of
evidence in other domains. Likewise, it is important that only *truths* (and not
false interpretations) about nature are used in our interpretations of special
revelations.
> Intelligent Design is an issue over both discovery of a fixed truth and an
> agreement that it, as God, is a revealed truth. Does "all" truth imply both
> discovered truth and revealed truth? How about moral truth?
Yes to both questions. There is nothing unethical about desiring to know all
discovered, revealed, or moral truths. Would one tell a child who desires to read
all the books in the library that she must not have such an evil desire, for it
verges on the wicked desire to know all truth? I don't think so.
> If we are creators of
> truth through free will, then God has chosen to limit God's ability to know.
I don't see what that has to do with it.
> Do humans create moral truth or is it purely revealed truth? Some
> scientists do propose the existence of natural morality set by our genes.
Humans do not create moral truths. We create laws and customs, but those laws and
customs are subject to moral truths that we do not create. Which scientists are you
referring to? If you believe that morality originates in our genes, perhaps you
could explain the source of its normativity. Wilson and Arnhart have difficulty
avoiding eliminative reductionism with respect to morality.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 11:41:28 EDT