blogstuff
ansatz cljournal coldnsnowy fearsome forgetisaid goopenhiemer gebryan highway nosuch payphone popesleipnir rawkstah springtide technicolor waferthinmint wolfandmoose
•••Daddy, Where Does Knowledge Come From?
Along with hermeneutics (the philosophy of interpretation), related questions of epistomology (the philosophy of knowledge and knowing things) continue to intrigue me. When we start to talk about filters through which one approaches the Bible, some of those are epistomological. I approach the Scriptures with the presupposition that I can, in fact, obtain reliable knowledge there. Not ALL kinds of knowledge, mind you. I don't suspect one can ever discover how to repair the Phantom Thunder vacuum cleaner in those pages, nor do I suppose I shall find knowledge of many other subjects. But I do pre-suppose that it is a reliable source of knowledge in spiritual matters. What was believed? What was taught? I come to the Bible supposing I can learn these things from it's passages. Others approach the Bible with what has sometimes been termed a "Hermeneutic of Suspicion." This suspicion takes different forms, but what they share in common is the assumption that what one is about to read is fundamentally unreliable, untrustworthy. There is a tendency to read an insincerity into the Biblical text. Beyond insincerity, some tend to read looking to find evidence of 20th and 21st Century political philosophies (both 'liberal' and 'conservative') being employed in these ancient documents, and the contents are unreliable because their purpose is not spiritual edification -- but human manipulation and the pursuit of a social agenda. Still others draw near supposing that Science alone is the nearest thing to a reliable source of knowledge known to contemporary humans. This hermeneutic of experience (reproducable experience, for the scientist -- deeply personal experience for Oprah et. al.) and experimentation being the standard measure of Truth applies rather universally in the minds of many. Here's an example: "Throughout history poets have written about the pain of a broken heart," Panksepp said in his commentary. "It seems that such poetic insights into the human condition are now supported by neurophysiological findings." [from an AP story today "Why A Broken Heart Hurts So Much."] It's worth asking the question, "Gee, what if neurophysical findings had never confirmed this? Would it be any less true? Was it any less true yesterday, or 300 years ago, or back in the time of, say, King David?" There is much more to be known than science can teach and prove to us. That is a presupposition (faith) I hold before I ever pick up my Bible. I don't believe it's an unreasonable presupposition, but I acknowledge that more than a few people today do deem even worse than unreasonable, but foolish. I come to the text of Scripture willing to hear from the text what it knows about spiritual matters, willing to learn there something I don't know. It's one of the filters I am aware that I read through. Not the only one, but the first I thought I'd toss out for you.
12:26:46 PM
googleit 195
Friday, October 10, 2003
October 2003
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Sep Nov
•••
the preacherman
•••
© Copyright
2003
Comments by: YACCS
