Re: 1st Query and truth

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:52:40 -0600

This, from SS and forwarded from Gordie:
>I have a question I would like to ask of the group. I have no ulterior
>motives in asking it. It is a question that genuinely perplexes me and
>for which I have not found a satisfactory answer. I would be grateful for
>the group's input and opinions.
>
>As a doctoral student in clinical psych I am being refreshed to "the
>scientific method". The basis of all scientific method is, of course,
>scholarly skepticism which Webster defines as a philosophy that assumes
>the way to knowledge is by questioning what is. So here is my question:
>Is there any way that scholarly skepticism can exist in the presence of
>faith ala Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>the evidence of things not seen?" How can one adopt a scholarly attitude
>based on doubting in the midst of a life that is maintained by believing?

and this from Jim Bell

>In the "old days," the search for Truth always meant delving into the >meaning
>of existence. You climbed a mountain in Tibet to ask the mystic what Truth
>was. Or you sought God. Truth, everyone knew, lay OUTSIDE the limited
>parameters of the physical world.

>Not anymore. Now "Truth" is what science tells us. Everything else is
>relegated, by implication, to "Superstition" or "Harmless Opinions."

I really don't have the time to give this question and point the
consideration they deserve, but I'll try a brief reply.

To SS's question about the apparent dichotomy between faith and scholarly
skepticism:

A simple answer is that a simple view of knowledge as being either scholarly
or faithful is unwarranted. For instance, it seems to me that one can
approach issues of faith in a scholarly fashion and can approach scholarship
with faith. In other words, faith and scholarship do not have to be
mutually exclusive. As a scientist and a Christian, I have faith that God
created the world and everyting in it, and in my scholarship I have the
privilege to unravel some of the mystery of a small part of the creation.
Furthermore, I am not comfortable with Webster's simple definition of
scholarship based on "questioning what is," which sounds like a license for
revisionism. I think that my own scholarship is primarily based, not on
this sort of skepticism, but on curiosity. Thus, with scholarship we delve
into the unknown or the unexplained, rather than simply trying to re-do what
is known (although re-doing is sometimes warranted). My curiosity does not
conflict with my faith.

To Jim's point. Certainly we cannot find all truth through science, and to
claim so is foolishness. But frankly, one does not learn all truth through
God either. Now before you jump on me for this, let me point out that God
is the creator of all truth, but this is different than finding truth only
through God. Truth about the physical world is mostly learned from the
physical world, both by those who believe as well as do not believe in God.
Thus, this truth, while originating with God, does not necessarily come from
seeking God. Of course, this whole point depends on how one defines truth.
To paraphrase Augustine, I know well enough what truth is, provided that no
one ask me :)

To both, SS's question and Jim's point, a better philosopher than I would
perhaps go on about external and internal ways of knowing.

Cheers
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings
to search out a matter." Proverbs

"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that
nobody asks me" Augustine 'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________