Epistemology

It's been a while since I've thought about the nature of truth, but a conversation with Carson regarding it the other day got me thinking.
After my paradigm of the Bible being the perfect "handbook for life" was shattered, I began to scrabble for something, anything to be a standard of sorts for truth. Indeed, when I mention that I don't believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture to most people at school, I get funny looks and the same question every time: "what do you base your faith on?" I don't really think in those terms anymore, so I usually can't give much of an answer, at least not one to satisfy the Evangelical mind.
Most Evangelicals tend toward the other extreme to describe people that don't view the Bible as absolutely authoritative, saying that they just go with how they feel all the time. What does that even mean? That if you don't have something that can be seen, read and heard to tell you what you should do, then you'll just make emotional decisions? If that's so, then why is Christianity split into at least three major branches, one of which divides into thousands of denominations? Sounds like a bunch of "emotional" decision making to me.
Of course they all think what they believe is true. But why? If you go to any denomination, branch, or type of church (or any religious service really) and you get people that share a certain trait. Something about their beliefs resonates with who they are. In most Christian denominations, people say that their Church "just teaches the Bible." Do they really? I mean, if it's a Christian Church, it's pretty much assured that the Bible is there. But what does "just teaches the Bible" mean? What does it mean that their brand of Christianity is "Biblical?"
This extends into other religions as well. They all have writings. The Book of Mormon, the
Quran, the Watchtower. Some don't have a central writing, but many writings. One thing they all have in common though, is that they attempt to base their religion on their writings, most of which are accompanied by claims to divine inspiration.
Practically, nothing sets Christianity apart. And with people breathing down my throat telling me if I'm really a Christian I should believe the Bible is Inerrant, the question that Pilate asked Christ has become central in my quest for knowledge.
What is truth?
Christians usually try to make the claim that their religion, and thus their claim to truth, is superior to others. This usually begins with the Bible. Ignoring apparent contradictions, the claim is that the teachings never contradict, and that the Bible itself proves its' own Inerrancy with hermeneutical interpretations, based on the presuppositions that one must come to the Bible with. There's no getting away from presupposition really, we always suppose something without proving it. I'm a Christian based on things that I can't prove, except to myself based on subjective knowledge. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The point is, I don't buy proofs for inerrancy. If the Holy Spirit really does bring Christianity to consensus on major doctrines, then inerrancy is not a major doctrine. Many well-respected Christians do not affirm inerrancy, and the easiest example of this offhand is C.S. Lewis. The hermeneutics of inerrancy rely heavily upon believing that any reference in Scripture is equivalent to "God's word" or "the word of God." I don't buy this either, for reasons I will elaborate on momentarily.
The one thing that I have been convinced of is that the Bible is a historically reliable book, a product of the Early Apostolic Church, started by the Apostles who knew Christ. Based on this, we can presume that the four gospels give the most accurate picture of who Jesus was, and based on Jewish society, we can presume that the Old Testament is accurate, for the most part. I make no claims regarding epistles, and perspicuity (the Bible being clear on all essential doctrine) has thrown itself out of a 100th story window a long time ago. The real issue here is whether the Bible conveys the Character of God. My completely subjective answer is an emphatic yes, because I know God, and know that He's the same one written about in Scripture, which I believe is reliable enough to read and understand God better through.
The disturbing thing about all of this for most intellectually inclined people (like myself) is that knowing God, a completely experiential and subjective thing, precedes belief in Scripture, something that is supposedly objective, and a measure for truth.
But there's something else I've always relied on to distinguish what is true from what is not, and it is not the Bible. In light of the apparent inability of the church at large to agree on just what is Biblical and the ridiculous insistence of everyone upon their faith being the Biblical one, this makes me think that Truth itself is something far more abstract.
The question still remains: what is truth? And the further nagging one has now attached itself to the end, the central question to epistemology...how do we know what is true, or that which corresponds to reality? Further, how do we know we know?
With this in mind...let's look at John 1. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was then equated with God. What did this mean to the Jews that would be reading this, and what did it mean to John? The concept of God speaking creation into existence Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) wasn't a knew one, and the key here becomes that God spoke it into existence. To speak...you use words. In the beginning was the Word.
The Ancient Jews believed that the Word was more than just something uttered by God, but something through which all things were created. Furthermore, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Meaning that Jesus is the Word, or what God spoke creation into existence with. If truth is that which pertains to reality, and reality was created through Christ pre-incarnation, in essence, then Christ is Truth embodied, and reality is all something that has flowed and continually flows from him.
Yes, for all of this to work, I must presuppose that Jesus is an extension of God. A manifestation if you will, or as Christians love to call him, the second person of the Holy Trinity. To sum it up, Jesus is God. I have no way of proving that, it is a presupposition based on my personal experience with God.
So when we read of the word of the Lord in Scripture, what does it mean, when used abstractly? Does it mean a book that everyone interprets differently, and requires a ton of historical context to understand its' subjective and occasionally objective message, or does it mean the mystical concept of the Word, the Logos in Greek, or the thing from which the universe has flowed?
I'll go for the second one, and only the second one. The first simply makes no sense to me, especially since when it was written there was no Bible.
So what is truth? Truth is Christ, or the Word of God, and truth is that which corresponds to reality.
If we then conclude that truth is that which corresponds to Truth, the ultimate reality, then we're seeing the words of the Word everywhere, as creation was created through the Word, or Christ.
Confused yet?
How do I know I know something? I don't, but I believe, because someone greater has given me ways of perceiving it, and walks with me.
What do I base my faith on? I base it on my subjective experience with God. The God I believe in is so infinite, that I have no way of telling you what His Salvation is, other than the outpouring of His love.
What is truth, and how do I discern it? I discern it based on my relationship with Truth, while recognizing that because I am human, I cloud it a lot of times. I am subjective, but that doesn't keep my relationship with God from guiding me.
It's a tougher answer than the whole "I believe what is Biblical" answer, but it is honest, from my heart, and it's a faith in a God that is alive, like the faith of many that try to have a Biblical one.
It is also a faith that hopes that people of all religions, faiths, or beliefs can be saved, and can spend eternity with God. The God I believe in is big enough to do that, is present in this universe enough so that everyone knows of Him, and loves people enough to allow them to reject Him if they so choose.
I also admit that I may not have the whole picture. Due to my subjectivity, I must admit to something I've hated admitting ever since becoming a Christian: I am just a man, and one that doesn't know everything. Someone else may know more about Truth than I do. Hence, I want to learn as much as I can from everyone I meet.
After all, Truth is infinite.

The Voice of Change, the Darkhorse Doctor, the Woman of Experience, and the Crazy Preacher

I've gotten multiple comments regarding disappointment and loss of respect since I've decided to support Senator Barack Obama for the Presidential race publicly on Facebook. That irritates me. Not the difference of opinion, that's fine. People can and will disagree. But the implication that I am somehow ignorant or less intelligent for supporting this man is absurd and quite aggravating, considering the amount of thought I put into everything else.
It all started with hearing about Doctor Ron Paul from Beth. Though I was disappointed that he was running as a Republican since the "GOP" has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, he seemed to have some pretty good policies. So I investigated a little. His policies are for reducing Government power and returning control now held by Federal programs to the states. This also means tax cuts. Sounds pretty good. Finally, after being a registered voter for 4 years, there was someone that I thought I could vote for.
Then I started asking my family and Republican friends about their opinions. I found that Republicans, by and large, do not support him. Mind you, this is in my limited social network, but the polls seem to agree. Those that support Dr. Paul are free thinkers, libertarians (which is Paul's political Philosophy anyway) and those whose opinion I generally respect. Most of the Republicans I've talked to happen to be Conservative Christians as well, so they support Mike Huckabee. I did a little investigation into his policies as well, and found several scandalous reports on his use of money. Let's just say his spending of government money has been, shall we say...not very ethical at some points.
Of course, politics has never been my thing. These reports could be true or false, and politicians all have their own things that the other side accuses them of. However, I quickly found that Mr. Huckabee supports continuing the war in Iraq. In fact, every Republican I've heard except for Ron Paul wants to continue the war until it is done, saying that we'll just be attacked again if we withdraw. Nevermind national security when there is fear I guess.
The Iraq War is the deciding factor for me. Add to that the fact that Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and the voice of the Evangelicals...no way.
So far it's looking like Ron Paul's my man. I still like him for the most part, though my opinion has changed. You see, I then looked at the Democrat's candidates. Hillary Clinton's focus on global warming is uninteresting to me, though I like most of her other credentials. She's not very big on the war though, and I am so far irritated by her political image. It's not because she's a woman or too liberal or anything, I just don't like how she's handling herself now that it is election year. She's so far acted infuriated that she's being knocked off the top in the polls, ruffled, and generally aggravated at Obama and Edwards for "ganging up on her." Underdog tactics, which lead to a narrow victory in New Hampshire. I am unimpressed.
It's not like I'll be angry or sad if she wins the Primary, I just have no desire to vote for her. And if it ends up being her and Mike Huckabee or any other Republican besides Ron Paul, I'll not be voting this year.
However, looking at Barack Obama's positions impressed me. On all of the major issues, I agree with both him and Hillary Clinton. They both support withdrawal from Iraq, they both want universal healthcare and energy independence, they're both pro-choice and pro-gay rights, which aren't huge issues for me, but I think they're better political positions than the alternatives. Hillary Clinton is for the death penalty which I don't like, but that's mostly a non-issue for me as well, at least politically. Still, it's a point against her. Neither of them are hard on the immigration situation.
But this is aside from who I could tell the candidates are. I've mentioned what I think of Hillary Clinton already. I looked over Barack Obama's website's section on faith, and was frankly impressed by what I read/watched.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
He claims to be a Christian, but his speech to a church full of Evangelicals was one of religious tolerance and universality of language when dialoguing with each other about matters of faith. He holds people of any faith in respect, as well as secularists, and points out the flaws in allowing an extreme of secularism or religion to dominate the climate very well.
Add to that, his reasoning on the major issues is solid. His Iraq policy outlined on his site is impressive and thought through, and his emphasis on diplomatic involvement rather than policing the world is a good one. I think people that say he's an imperialist are exaggerating the necessary caution that comes with a withdrawal from a country we have just pissed off a lot.
The main objection I've heard to every Democratic candidate thus far is taxes. Honestly, the system is a mess. You've got Huckabee's Fair Tax, Ron Paul's no tax, and everyone else's tax reforms. I have to wonder if Ron Paul is being realistic. I know he proposes to halt wasteful government spending, but is that really going to happen? Can radical change occur? I don't know, but I've always been a believer in it. Still, I wonder about him cutting support to so many government institutions and minimum wage at the same time...seems kinda crazy to me, especially with tax cuts. To be honest, taxes aren't that big of a deal to me. Everyone pays them, and we'll probably continue to do so, since cutting taxes and reducing the Federal Government is something the economy will be in shambles over, as well as probably not something anyone will vote for. But still, taxes are the only issue that Ron Paul would have my vote for, as well as being the only other respectable politician in the race I've seen so far.
However, I hold Senator Obama's ideas on a much higher level. Ron Paul's policies are about reforming America's programs within itself, which is important. Senator Obama has different ideas about America's inner workings, and it involves more government involvement. Personally, I am fine with that. If that means everyone gets healthcare, everyone gets education of some kind, and the government is ruled with compassion, good. From all indications right now, that's what seems to be happening in his camp. So far in the primaries, despite Hillary's spoiled attitude, he has done nothing but run a fair campaign with a minimum of mudslinging in return, with perhaps a few convenient things working out against his primary opponent. See: Hillary getting ganged up on. Obama's cool head is a great contrast to her attitude, which is unimpressive to say the least.
Add to that his ideas about Iraq, faith and spirituality, social justice and foreign policy, and I just have to support him. I'd rather have someone globally minded in office than someone purely concerned with holding to the Constitution in internal policy, however good that may be.
Every presidential candidate, regardless of what their supporters say, has flaws in their policy and in their character. I think the only thing that would disturb me would be if another Conservative takes office that is not Ron Paul, who is not a modern Republican in any sense. America does not need GW Bush the 2nd, and after reading Irresistible Revolution, I believe the killing in Iraq needs to stop, and we need to leave, now, which is something no GOP candidate endorses, except for Paul.
In my opinion, Senator Barack Obama would be the best choice for America's next president. Globally minded, freshly optimistic, and not obnoxiously preachy or secularist.
Above all, no matter who wins, I hope for a president that is honorable and will designate no more ridiculous labels like "Axis of Evil," preside over America with compassion for the citizens of America and the people of the world, and can do what needs to be done, with death on their hands being a last resort. I believe Senator Barack Obama is the man for the job.

Blogosphere...?

I now have yet another medium with which to interact with others on the internet, known as a "Blogspot." Really, I thought Xanga or Livejournal would be enough, or even Facebook or Myspace, which may be deleted at some point, since I still hate Myspace. But alas, I have found a use for having one of these, and so it has happened.
I sometimes desire to write without going to all of the trouble of publishing a Facebook note and tagging people, but in a place where everyone can read it. This is my home for that. If you are reading this on Facebook and are confused, that's because this post was imported. Here, you will likely find commentary on religion, politics, music, spirituality, gaming, anime, movies, and anything else of importance in my life. I try to make my thoughts significant, but they often are not, and they are often insignificant to everyone but me. In this case, I invite you to get over it. No one forces you to read this, but I do appreciate discussion about my thoughts, as that's why I've chosen to publish them more publicly than I usually do.
I have also found several people on Blogspot that I want to interact with in that forum. I don't need one to do so, but I chose to anyway, for aforementioned reasons.
I now leave you with the words of Friedrich Nietzsche's "Madman." Just how mad was he, really?
"God is dead, and we have killed Him."