In a previous post I stressed my reluctance to get involved in an argument against someone that is convinced by experience. We ultimately believe what we have experienced. If I have experienced Korea first hand, and afterwards you come to me and try to convince me that Korea does not exist, there is probably no amount of persuasion you can try that would convince me otherwise.
But the Bible warns us against experiences. Apparently experience can also fool us into believing a deception. Christ cautions: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). People will experience “signs and wonders”, and will be fooled into believing the truths that they propagate.
Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? How can we know what is truth and what is deception?
The scientific community would propagate that one should only trust measurable experimentally-replicatable facts. But this leaves out of equation all those things that cannot be tested in a laboratory. And it is precisely those metaphysical things that concern me at present.
On the other hand the Christian community would push that the Bible, the Word of God, is our measure of things to trust.
But this is presented as an argument against Christian objectivity. Christians are accused of seeing the world through a specific Biblical paradigm, which disallow most to see anything beyond that paradigm’s framework. That is why a minority of Christians even refuse to believe in the existence of dinosaurs, because according to their narrow understanding there is no room for dinosaurs – and they are therefore unable to conceive of such creatures, even when presented with proof, such as dinosaur bones. Conversely, other Christian who believes that God also created these creatures can more easily fit the extinct beasts into their mindset.
Having had countless providential experiences myself it would be almost impossible for me to conceive a reality without God. Even though I may try and be as objective as possible, it is almost unattainable for me to interpret Life, the Universe and Everything purely materialistically, i.e. atheistically. My experiences stain my understanding.
I can imagine a reality without religion, and definitely without an innate immortal soul, but not one without God. My paradigm doesn’t allow it. And why not? Because of philosophical arguments for God’s existence, yes, but more so, because of experiences; experiences of God providence.
The only way for me to believe otherwise, is if the experiences could be interpreted differently. At the moment, there is no way I can imagine those experiences as just mere random accidental events. They were to consistently accurate to be accidents – for instance receiving exact amounts of monetary donations for pressing needs. My only interpretation is Providence. And if so, I have to believe in something behind such Providence – i.e. God.
Again, my question: Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? Is there any real objectivity – or is everything merely interpretations of experiences?
I experience random favourable events as providence; you experience it as accidents – as good luck. Does everything just water down to personal interpretation?
No comments:
Post a Comment