Faith and Certainty of Knowledge

As we have seen so long as we use the correspondence theory of truth we can never have certainty of knowledge. But the vast majority of the human race wants exactly that, certainty of knowledge. What people want people eventually get. But no matter how they try they can never have true certainty of knowledge. So they settle for the only thing available, the illusion of certainty of knowledge. That illusion is known as faith.

Faith is hope in things unseen. And therein lies the problem. We cannot know for certain things unseen actually exist. Yet people claim they know something is true simply because they believe in its truth. Their belief has no room for the possibility of error. Indeed they believe because they do not want to deal with the possibility of error. Their faith has made them blind to the possibility of error. Their entire view of reality would shatter if they were to ever admit to the possibility of error.

This is why faith has such a bad reputation in the fact based community. Not only do the faithful harm themselves by confusing things as they really are with things as they wish them to be the faithful conspire to harm others by forcing them to behave in an identical manner. We simply do not have the evidence which would allow us to conclusively establish God's will. We do not even have the evidence to conclusively establish God's existence. In the absence of such evidence tolerance of diversity, it can be argued, is the best action to take. And if one wants to argue there must be positive evidence for God's existence before He can take a role in public life then there is no possibility for God to play a role in public life.

Secularism part 1.

Secularism is based on one simple principle. Truth requires proof; proof requires fact. Without fact there is no truth. The secularist lives in a world where there is only fact based truth and opinion. This makes secularism powerful because fact based conceptions of reality are the most accurate conceptions of reality. But it puts secularists at a disadvantage when discussing moral and religions issues because the concepts used in morality and by the religions are not backed up by facts.

Secularism defines truth by the correspondence theory. The correspondence theory of truth claims truth is the word we use to describe the identity of the conception of reality we hold in our minds and reality as it is. But since we can never be certain of this accuracy we can never be certain we know the truth. So in the world of secularism there is no such thing as truth. More accurately there is no such thing as certainty of knowledge.

Now the correspondence theory of truth is the theory of truth used by scientists. They call it the scientific method. Scientists observes reality. They then create hypotheses to explain their observations. They then test these hypotheses by gathering new information, new facts. As more and more facts defend the hypothesis it becomes a theory. The theory will be considered true until facts are discovered which cannot be explained by it.

Because science uses the correspondence theory of truth it is wrong to say science gives us truth. What science gives us the the most accurate description of reality possible. As science gathers more facts its description of reality becomes even more accurate. This is its power and this is why secularists are accepting of it. But people want certainty of knowledge. And that neither secularism or science can give. This is why science and secularism are not universally popular.

Liberal vs Conservative Christians

The primary dispute between liberal and conservative Christians is metaphysical. Liberal Christians are naturalists while Conservative Christians are supernaturalists. Now the liberal Chrisians may not be quite ready to acknowledge they are naturalists but the only way one can defend their method of making theology is by first acknowledging naturalism as the primary way in which they view reality. From the viewpoint of the supernaturalist the liberal way of doing theology is quite unique and indeed heretically so.

Naturalism is one component of the metaphysical system used by science to view reality. The other two components are materialism and mechanism. Thus the metaphysical system of science can be labeled as mechanistic-materialistic-naturalism. This is the metaphysical system of Newtonian physics. The success of science over the past several hundred years has convinced many people science has proven this the only true metaphysical system. This is false, indeed the new understanding of physics known as quantum physics leads one to conclude we can not know if any one metaphysical system is exclusively true. But in order to do science one must be accepting of the mechanistic-materialistic-naturalistic system of viewing reality.

Liberals are prejudiced in favor of science. This means they are prejudiced in favor of the mechanistic-materialistic-naturalistic way of viewing reality. This means, for example, they are more comfortable with the idea of nature, ie human beings, creating God than they are with the idea of a creator God simply because if there is nothing superior to nature then nature can create but is not created. They are also comfortable with the idea that matter creates and controls mind because mechanism and materialism both imply the truth of reductive materialism; and if reductive materialism is true then mind is nothing more than a creation of matter.

Thus for example liberals are accepting of homosexuals because they are accepting of the homosexual arguments for their own existence. These arguments are based on the ideas of sexual orientation and conditional homosexuality. They are comfortable with these ideas becausse they are based on the idea that matter can control mind. In the end the idea matter can control mind is quite acceptable to the naturalist, who believes nature is all the reality there is. If liberal Christians were not comfortable with the materialistic and naturalistic view of reality they would be less accepting of the homosexual arguments for their own existence.

Meanwhile conservative Christians are decidely uncomfortable with mechanistic, materialistic, and naturalistic arguments for anything. They are supernaturalists. They believe in a metaphysical system in which God exists outside of nature and indeed created nature. God created nature, including human beings, for His own purposes. These purposes He tells humans through revelation. These revelations include both scripture and the incarnation, in which God became, in the person of Jesus, a part of His own creation. The way in which they view reality makes conservative Christians comfortable with the idea "God said it, I believe it, that's that."

Given the way in which they view reality homosexuals, from the conservative point of view, simply do not exist. There is simply no room in the supernatural viewpoint for the idea matter creates mind. From this point of view it is the other way around, mind, namely the mind of God, creates matter. Once one decides mind creates matter one can argue mind can control matter. At this point one must conclude there are no such persons as homosexuals. The idea of homosexuality simply becomes a way of rationalizing immoral same sex intercourse. At this point demands to accept hommosexuals simply become offensive.

The folks at Get Religion are concerned about the disconnect between how those who write for the MSM view homosexual marriage and how their readers view it. Most of those who write favor homosexual marriage and most of those who read do not. This disconnect is easily explained. Those who write for the MSM are naturalist, and more importantly materialistic naturalists, while those who read and watch the MSM are Supernaturalists who are accepting of traditional Christian moral values.

Naturalists see nothing wrong with consensual homosexual relations. After all they know homosexuality exists. It is a proven material fact. Furthermore the way in which a materialist must do his or her moralizing makes it impossible to condemn any sexual behavior so long as the participants in it are consenting. On the other hand Supernaturalists believe our creator God has told us these relationships are contrary to His perfect will. From their point of view that is that. And at this point they are correct. Further communication between these two points of view is impossible. This explains why discussions concerning homosexuality quickly turn into shouting matches. The two sides can't discuss the issue because they don't share common ground upon which to conduct it.

Much of the reason for the ill feeling which is labeled "homophobia" by the homosexual community comes from the vicious fight over the acceptance of homosexuality which has been going on in the mainline Protestant churches for the past 30 years. This is a litmus test issue in the most literal of senses. Those who support the acceptance of homosexuals are naturalist leaning liberals while those who oppose the acceptance of homosexual are supernaturalist leaning conservatives. In this sense this is merely the continuation of a fight which has been going on for the past 300 or more years. The supernaturalists have not done well in this fight. Overwhelming evidence has forced retreat after retreat. The supernaturalists have now reached the point where they can retreat no longer. If science can show Christian moral law is invalid then the battle to save Christianity is over. The half-Christian faith of the liberals will have won a truly decisive victory. Which means from the viewpoint of traditional supernaturalistic Christianity the battle over the acceptance of homosexual behavior truly is a matter of life or death.

Unfortunately is is also a matter of life and death to homosexuals. They have come to see their entire existence as an extention of the gender of the people with whom they have sex. In order to accept them as individuals one must be accepting of their sexual preferences. This is impossible for those Christians who believe in traditional Christian morality. Furthermore there is nothing those Christians who believe in traditional Christian morality can do about it. God made traditional morality for His benefit not theirs. But the homosexual community sees this as hate. As do their friends. And since those Christians who believe in traditional Christian moral values can't accept homosexual behavior hate it soon becomes.

First post

The people who run the Get Religion blog are concerned about the MSN's inability to understand the religious aspects of the news. But often the differences between religions and especially the differences between the religious point of view and the secular one are differences in first principles of practical reasoning. The religious and the secular worlds have a difficult time understanding one another because they see reality in ways which are mutually exclusive. The differences are metaphysical ones. So in order to get religion one must first get metaphysics. Only then can one understand the various arguments over morals and religious well enough to make sense of them. The goal of this blog is to explore and explain these differences.