[Industrialblog,
March 17, 2005]
Sin, skepticism, epistemology and stuff
Over at Father Jake's, I asked:
Is there such a thing a sin? If so, what is it? And how do we know (1) what they are, and (2) that we're guilty of specific sins?
Does the Holy Spirit convict us of sin? How do we know the difference between conviction from the Holy Spirit and a punitive superego or mere guilt from a socially constructed value system from which we have failed to conform?
The question I'm getting at is, "How do you know?"
If the Church is not a source of authority, and not scripture, and not tradition, then what? Reason? But if reason, how do we answer the skeptical tradition from Hume onward, etc. How do we know?
People who read this blog know my answers. But I'm interested in hearing others' answers.
If the church is the source of authority, which church and how do you justify that? If scripture, which scriptures and how do we decide which are still in effect and which aren't? If tradition, which ones and is change possible? If so, on what grounds do we accept change? If reason and none of the others, how can we get from reason to a Jewish carpenter was resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago, which is simply not a reasonable concept.
What about our experiences? But if our experience is our guide, what about those who have contradictory or contrary experiences and testify just as strongly that we are wrong?
Church, reason, tradition, scripture, experience ... what else do we have?
What about the truth written on our own heart? If so, shouldn't that be widely shared? Why are their widely shared differences and why do they suspiciously break along ethnic grounds?
Is there such a thing a sin? If so, what is it? And how do we know (1) what they are, and (2) that we're guilty of specific sins?
Does the Holy Spirit convict us of sin? How do we know the difference between conviction from the Holy Spirit and a punitive superego or mere guilt from a socially constructed value system from which we have failed to conform?
The question I'm getting at is, "How do you know?"
If the Church is not a source of authority, and not scripture, and not tradition, then what? Reason? But if reason, how do we answer the skeptical tradition from Hume onward, etc. How do we know?
People who read this blog know my answers. But I'm interested in hearing others' answers.
If the church is the source of authority, which church and how do you justify that? If scripture, which scriptures and how do we decide which are still in effect and which aren't? If tradition, which ones and is change possible? If so, on what grounds do we accept change? If reason and none of the others, how can we get from reason to a Jewish carpenter was resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago, which is simply not a reasonable concept.
What about our experiences? But if our experience is our guide, what about those who have contradictory or contrary experiences and testify just as strongly that we are wrong?
Church, reason, tradition, scripture, experience ... what else do we have?
What about the truth written on our own heart? If so, shouldn't that be widely shared? Why are their widely shared differences and why do they suspiciously break along ethnic grounds?