John 3:16 questions

Roughly speaking, 'cognition' refers to knowledge, belief, thinking or intellectual processes. As I'm using the term here, 'cognitive knowing' provides us with information about the thing known. It results a set of true factual statements. By 'non-cognitive knowing', I'm talking about something more analogous to what happens when we respond to the sublimity of a work of art. Or to what happens to a mystic contemplative in a meditation cell, perhaps.

My point is that if God transcends human cognition, then all the factual propositions that a religion produces about "him" become problematic.

But wouldn't humility suggest dismissing the creeds because they purport to express truths about things that by definition can't be understood?

If human attempts to put transcendent matters into nice conceptual boxes is mistaken, then why don't the essential truths of supernatural religion fall prey to the same criticism?

I happily accept that reality almost certainly overflows my ability to know and understand. So I have no trouble in accepting that I'm surrounded by mysteries. (In fact I am one myself.)

But having accepted the mysteries, we are left with the problem of what to believe. What set of propositions should we assert as factually true?

'The unknown' is unbounded. It's a very big place that contains an uncountable and effectively infinite set of possibilities.

Our cognitive task is to determine some subset of raw possibility as justified true belief. And for that task, reason probably is the best tool that we humans have. Humility suggests that we accept that our assertions of truth are both incomplete and fallible. But that's the best that finite humans can do.

Having said that, I don't deny that we can relate to the unknown in non-cognitive ways. I think that we can and do. It's just our existential situation. But if we want to assert true factual propositions about these kind of things, dismissing reason probably isn't a very good move.

I do the best that I can.

If all you are stating is your own emotional response to Christianity vis a vis other religions, then I can't argue.

But just factually, I think that other religions sometimes do express counter-intuitive teachings. I think that other religions elicit feelings of transcendent mystery in their devotees. And some religions have things analogous to philosophical theology that can attain tremendous sophistication and subtlety.

 

Funny, I thought that's what you were doing with your previous post. And you know what, my fellow Kansan?

You've still steadfastly refused to respond to my argument.

 

If you want to understand, in any way, a transcendent, infinite G-d, you cannot do so through normal means.

The doctrines that I quoted are just man's attempt to put some meaning into the words that G-d inspired. I think they're pretty good for the most part, but you're right in saying they're suspect on some level. They're not perfect like the genuine article.

G-d tells us everything we know, but He does not tell us everything He knows. And of course, if He did, we couldn't comprehend it.

Let me put it this way: Aristotle was wrong. And not just a little wrong. He couldn't possibly have missed the mark more. And he has left 100 generations of wrong-headed Western mindset in his terrible wake.

I just want you to know that you can understand but a few very primitive things. You will never ever be able to understand absolute truth--as in the Creator's transcendent truth--through your own understanding. If you seek G-d, not by relying on your intellect, but acknowledging that you are but a vapor that is here for a bit then gone, that you are not G-d and that G-d is not bounded by your mind or your reason, that you are essentially, nothing--then you might find Him.

But you won't ever do it except on bowed knee, and the first place to start is by laughing at your own vanity.

 

I've been giving this one a bit of thought, actually. The fact is, that there is a cognitive component to understanding God in a limited, basic way, according to Scripture, as noted in Romans. Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Clearly there are certain basic things that can be understood through our reason. Indeed, rather than deny the validity of truth expounded by, say, Plato, the early Christian apologists studied their writings and understood many things as in fact indicating a leaning in the direction of truth regarding God and even specifically as He is revealed in Messiah, the Word ("Word" in the sense of "Logos" within God rather than in the sense of the Bible). Examples of this sort abound, such as the Clement of Alexandria's 2nd century explanation of how Plato's Timeaus contain things which point to Messiah.

I've been going through a fascinating book recently called Christ the Eternal Tao, in which the writer, Hieromonk Damascene (from a different Christian tradition from me; he's an Eastern Orthodox monk), extols the below-quoted Lao Tzu (who wrote the Tao Teh Ching) as one who went further in his reasoning and hunger for God than just about any other similar human effort, and that the Tao is the Logos of which the Greeks wrote. Of course, in the end, one cannot reach the truth in detail without revelation from God about Himself, which we would conclude is given in the Bible. I would say that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us") not only because of some of the unusual aspects of the Scriptures (such as the demonstrating of rulers' faults, not exactly commonplace in ancient literature), but also because so many other religious expressions seem to express the kind of longings and partial explanations that are truly only brought to fruition and fulfillment in Him.

The above, however, is as well what is given through revelation, in the Scriptures. Of course, even with the Scriptures, there is the necessity of this being worked out in our own experience, our own relationship with Him, within the guidance the Scriptures give us, moving ever deeper into Him by the power of His grace.

(of course, there is also Kierkegaard's whole concept of moving past reason into the realm of faith "on the strength of the absurd", when one has gone as far as one can with mere reason. Maybe for later).

Peace,

Matt

 

Nice to see that we're passing the peace around! (here come the cracks about the "peace pipe!" ->)

Honestly, Brett, it's like 5 pages. It's really not all that long, and I wouldn't see that much value of taking a couple of one-sentence sound-bytes out of context; the example you gave earlier of one sentence from Athanasius' work (the same one) was a good one of how easily it is easy to misunderstand something this profound out of context.

Frankly, if someone asked me to read a bit about "how a race of lizard men really rule the earth" (Sleestack's from the old Saturday morning show "Land of the Lost"?), I'd almost certainly want to read it, if only for a laugh.

Even more peace,

Matt

 

What kind of response can I fashion to "Puny mortal, in the grand scheme your intellect is barely above that of a cat. Of course this stuff doesn't make sense, it's God stuff, so just accept it"?

I'll grant you that God cannot be understood with human reason. It's a LONG way from believing that to believing in human sacrifices for the vicarious atonement of sins.

Obviously, your paradigm is precious and comfortable to you.

I'm not the one who has to believe doctrines X and Y, and then shuck and jive as much as I can to try and make sense of them (or not make sense of them and laugh at those who try.)

Your laugh is telling. It's a subtle attempt at control.

But it's not an argument.

 

OK...I started to read the Athanasius. I completed Chapter 1 and had to ask myself "Why am I reading this?"

There was nothing new there, and nothing more than assertions that use "scripture" as their authority.

Athanasius picks a few alternate creation myths, to which he responds, ""Such are the notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith."

Ah yes, foolish talk. Foolish talk plainly declared so by more foolish talk. (But this is "divine" foolish talk. )

So, seriously, why am I reading this?

It's not like I don't know the story. And citing the story as it's own authority strikes me as just a tad circular. Isn't it?

I think a guy named David Icke wrote a conspiracy book or two like that.

Heaping bowls full of peace to you

Brett

 

"Precious and comfortable". Real cute, Brett.

It wasn't the human sacrifice that did the trick, Brett--it was G-d sacrificing Himself. A G-d against whom all sins are a personal affront. I made that clear.

And, believe-it-or-not, I'm not some little sniveling xian (as you would likely put it, if you put it at all) who's crouching in a corner hoping to goodness none of you enlightened skeptics says something that causes my whole house of cards to come crashing down. I'm no expert like Bill Grover or others on this forum--in fact, I'm hardly an amateur--but I have looked into this stuff, I'm not pulling it straight from my nether regions, and my faith is not the product of upbringing. I was rasied a blank, agnostic slate (true fact).

And it's true, you have little more cognition in the grand scheme of things than a cat. Or a cockroach. It's also true that I did give you a compelling reason in my earlier post as to how we might understand vicarious atonement on a primitive level. But you've wholly ignored that. Perhaps your paradigm is comforting as well. You see, if there is no G-d, there is no judgment, and then we can throw phrases around like "grant me that which I deserve" with impunity, and laugh at the absurdity of it all.

But your laugh is telling.

Now, on to other things. My wife, a born-again, Messianic-tilting Republican maniac like me, seems to be toying with vegetarianism, veganism, or even eating purely raw foods. She keeps pointing me to this-or-that website and showing me this-or-that book. I personally think she's a little daft, but I love her dearly, so at this point I'm humoring her--with a few snide comments thrown in--imagine that! Can you relate any of the purported health benefits of this lifestyle? She seems to think that we'll all start running marathons and feeling like giddy children again if we eat that way. I personally like animals and point out to her the four nice meat tearing teeth that G-d (or, to be fair to your perspective, nature) gave me as evidence that I'm supposed to carry on as I've done for four decades.

Comments? Or is your veganism a matter of moral principle rather than health benefit? And what think your fellow wild western Kansans of your unusual bent?

Your friend and foe,

Mike aka Little Fauss

 

No god? Is someone here arguing that there's no god?

The first part of the line, which you have omitted, is "O ye gods, grant unto me that which I deserve."

I believe in gods, Mike. I just don't believe in vicarious atonement of sins.

Good for her (and you.)

Yes, I can attest to the health benefits, but my impetus for going vegan was ethical reasons.

I in fact did start running marathons after I went vegan. I've run 3 of them along with countless road races and triathlons up to a half-ironman.

Now that you mention it, I often do feel like a giddy child. (And I still get in trouble for it every once in a while.)

Evidence is all in how you interpret it, I guess. Your canines are a joke compared to those of carnivores. They'd do a damn poor job of puncturing and tearing open a live animal.

By and large they don't seem to be too concerned about it. After 10+ years as a vegan I've heard all the jokes, and have a few of my own.

I don't consider you my foe in any way.

 

Ew... so are you suggesting that our canines are meant for cooked meat??

or maybe it's just "puncturing and tearing open" a live, erm, hamster or something of more manageable size?

Sorry, couldn't resist after such vivd language! (;->

Matt

 

To each their own.

 

What abnormal means would you suggest?

And how should we go about distinguishing between proper abnormal means on one hand, and error, self-deception or pathology on the other?

If abnormal knowledge can fail to make sense, if it can offend human reason, but if it must nevertheless be accepted in a spirit of humility if it purports to be about God, then what's to prevent people from embracing anything that they want to believe?

Or at least enter into the delusion of having found something.

Turning off our thinking process is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion, so long as we are still on the cognitive path pretending to be discovering propositional knowledge.

I am reluctant to throw my reason overboard and to simply believe whatever anyone tells me to believe about God.

You call that vanity. I call it sanity.

 

It's kind of silly for small little things like you and me to pretend that nothing outside our comprehension can exist.

Isn't it?

 

There's a difference between a foe that you slay and a foe with which you joust, at least in my dictionary. You fit into the latter category.

Next time I'm through Dodge, how about sitting down over a nice healthy vegan meal? My wife would love it. Then we could go off and have a good vigorous debate while she checks out the cool sites downtown. BTW: Last time we were in Dodge a few months ago, we ate at a reasonably good Chinese buffet (for Kansas). I suppose you might not eat there given your diet. Then again, I don't know.

Shalom.

 

I don't think that I've ever suggested that nothing outside my comprehension can exist. In fact I'm reasonably confident that an uncountable and effectively infinite number of things exist that I don't know about.

But problems arise when people claim to possess knowledge about the things that lie outside their comprehension.

The point isn't that everything unknown doesn't exist. It's the difficulty associated with cramming the unknown into a neat conceptual box. Constructing the box from high sounding religious language and annoiting it as sacred scripture or the acts of church councils doesn't even address the fundamental problem.

To steal a phrase from Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (Tractatus 7.)

 

It'd be my pleasure. Just let me know.

Brett

 

I'm not claiming to know anything outside my comprehension. The Master tells the student all the student knows, but seldom all the Master knows.

I know very little at all.

Church councils and their creeds can be wrong or right; high-sounding religious language can be wrong or right. But none of it, of course, can begin to grasp all that G-d is--as if that could be accomplished with words.

All I'm saying is that I have met that G-d and that He is living within me, whatever that means. This experience has changed me dramatically. This G-d walked the Earth among us and told us something about Himself and made the path to reconciliation with Himself at great cost. This is my subjective experience, of course. It's only my opinion that the document that describes His work on Earth is authoritative. But all experience is subjective--mine and yours.

You could experience the exact same thing that as me, but I doubt I'll be able to nudge you into considering it on the basis of reason alone. All I can ask you to do is make an honest investigation of my claims. And realize that you'll never take the final step to knowing (forget understanding) G-d with reason alone. Not possible.

 

You got it. I'll be in touch when I'm through your parts again.

BTW: I'm a ways away from you, in far S.E. Kansas. But then again, everything's a ways away from you! Dodge is kindof a cool town, though, and dwarfs the size of my little village--I'll give you that.

 

I think that as soon a people start making factual informative statements about something, statements that might be true or false, then there's a cognitive component.

The problem that I see is that people want to have it both ways. They want to insist that Christian 'truth' IS truth, while simultaneously arguing that those matters are immune from human reason.

I quoted the opening lines of the Tao te Ching to illustrate a non-cognitive approach to religious matters:

Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.

Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.

Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.

Apparently it's being suggested that the Tao can be experienced and known in some sense, but in a way that doesn't involve teachings, names or words.

In that case I can understand hesitance to apply logic and reason, because we no longer have linguistically formed propositions for them to work on. We no longer have any conventional truth values. We can avoid the risk of cramming transcendent realities into inappropriate human conceptual categories, but the cost is surrendering religious language.

But that kind of approach, is going to do real violence to a Semitic-style 'religion of the Book'. In the Christian tradition many of the mystics have gone down this road, but only at the cost of having to go through elaborate contortions to retain some kind of meaning for scripture and only by walking the absolute edge of the tradition. The pseudo-Dionysius wrote his 'The Divine Names' to address the problems that the transcendental unknowing of his 'Mystical Theology' so obviously raised.

A revelation packaged in language that presumably is both informative and true. So from the very first, God is being crammed into conceptual categories and into propositions. I'm not sure how people can denounce worm-like human beings doing that kind of thing without simultaneously denouncing the Bible which is the paradigmatic example of it.

There's also the question of religious choice. The Bible isn't the only religious revelation circulating out there, and even if it were the only one, the possibility still remains that it's false. If we are going to avoid going seriously astray, we have to have some means, accessible to our capacities, of determining true and false in religious matters. But when religous matters address realities beyond human knowing, the problems aren't easy to solve. That's doubly true when our attempts to make these determinations are denounced as 'vanity'.

Yeah, 'Fear and Trembling' scared me to death when I read it. Kierkegaard is one guy who, like me, does NOT take religous faith lightly. But he preaches a path that I simply can't follow. His 'Knight of Faith', Abraham lifting the knife to kill his son in full knowledge that the act is a complete abomination, on the basis of a divine command that he kmows is indistinguishable from the gibberings of madness, seems way too similar to a psychotic trusting the voices in his head. Vanity and sanity really do a dance in Kierkegaard.

The truth is that not only does God judge us, or at least so we are told, but we also judge God. It's inevitable. In our existential condition we have choices to make, we have to distinguish between religious truth and error. Kierkegaard wants us to be Knights of Faith, recognizing our worm-like condition, trusting and not presuming.

But somehow it's just assumed that it's the Bible that we will be trusting and that the Bible is in fact true. Somehow it's expected that our promptings will be God's grace and not something else. Unfortunately, the same path of intellectual surrender that for Kierkegaard leads to salvation leads others of us to suicide and eternal life on comet Hale-Bopp. It leads to coolaid at Jonestown.

Don't question, no matter how crazy it seems. It's all totally beyond someone like you. Just get on your knees and trust... then raise the knife.

 

Hi Bill,

1. While there are some things which are simply wrapped up in mystery, I certainly don't see there being a contradiction between a synthesis of cognitive and non-cognitive components of belief in Christ. TO illustrate: I have a little boy who will turn 8 in November, and I love him lots. Suppose I take him out to play in the park, and the park is bounded by fences, beyond which is a local highway. If I tell him, you can't go beyond that fence while you're playing, it's not because I'm a nasty father who sadistically enjoys placing restrictions on my son, but rather I want him to be secure in knowing where the genuine (ontological; the cars are really speeding along the highway!) boundaries are, that he can freely play and enjoy himself within the park, to both his and my own delight. The Scriptures are the cognitive component given to us not to be mean or restrictive, but to protect us and give us the true freedom which comes from having a set of at least basic "givens".

Thus, true mysticism can work within this rubrick, because we can know that certain basic things are given as true. While Lao Tzu in his brilliance realized the reality of the Tao, it was revealed to John hundreds of years later, that "In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God...and the Tao became flesh and dwelt among us..." (which is how the Canton [Cantonese?] edition of the NT in 1911 rendered John 1:1 and 14). We are free not only because we have a Book of guidelines, but because within that we are increasingly united in Bhakti relationship with this Word, this Logos, this Tao Who reveals Himself in increasing measure. Even in the case of Pseudo-Dionysius, his own theology was later developed into more coherent form by others such as Maximus the Confessor.

Faith that is merely cognitive is dry and lifeless; but faith which has no cognitive component has no anchor, and your comments above re: Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling are in a way an illustration of this. More on that below.

2. Re: Your comments on whether the Bible is truly Revelation and whether or not other "Holy Books" would not also qualifiy. This isn't the place to go into a full-blown defense of the Bible, found at a number of good apologetics sites such as this one. It is worth noting that the early Church fathers often sought to demonstrate how earlier religious and even philosophical texts actually point to the coming reality of Christ, and how even non-Hebrew prophets often pointed towards Him; Justin and Clement of Alexandria did this with, say Plato's Timeaus, and the aforementioned Hieromonk Damascene did with the Tao Teh Ching in Christ the Eternal Tao, or even the discovery of Biblical understanding in tribal religions in various parts of the word as documented by DOn Richardson in Eternity in Their Hearts are all examples of this "fulfillment" understanding as opposed to one that finds nothing of value in other religious traditions, while maintaining that ultimate truth is still to be found in Christ (Of course, sometimes Christ breaks in in a more direct manner with some people, such as was apparently the case with Bay Area artist Nilus Miles Stryker (described in his essay Through the Eastern Gate.)

3. With regard to Fear and Trembling, certainly you are correct to note that it is a fearsome book. When you noted that "We no longer have any conventional truth values", e.g., if we are following what you understood to be the understanding found in the Tao Teh Ching, then of course the whole prospect of being a "Knight of Faith" sounds insane and on par with Jonestown and Hale-Bopp moonbats, because you're right: If there are no fences, if there isn't at least a basic understanding of a set of givens about God, such a prospect can be dangerous indeed. We are safe at play with our Father because He is our guide, and has given us understanding (e.g., through the Scriptures) that there are certain things that He will not ask of me. For Abraham it was a one-off thing; God was demonstrating Abe's faithfulness and trust of Him, but if such a thought ever crossed my mind (God forbid!), I could dismiss it as quickly as I could remember "Thou shalt not kill".

This is stretching and enjoyable. Don't get this kind of interaction terribly often. Too long, though, I suppose. God bless.

Peace,

Matt