This post wraps up the series.
In case you're jumping into my blog for the first time here, I'm working on a sort of "series", where I have attempted to throw away my presuppositions as much as is possible for me, and I have attempted to rebuild a framework wherein I can live and approach life with a certain measure of confidence (just enough to justify me in living and acting at all). That is to say, my goal ended up clarifying itself down to this: "to only allow myself one presupposition -- knowledge is possible". If knowledge is not possible, then I cannot build a presupposition, or any supposition for that matter.
The following are the dates of the posts which comprise this series:
May 18, 2014
June 2, 2014
June 4, 2014
June 10, 2014
June 11, 2014
November 15, 2014
December 20, 2014
On June 10, I hit a dead-end, which I spent a lot of time thinking about and attempting to recover from. A few times I thought I had an answer, but I didn't want to put it down until I had something I could be sure of. I, in my pride, clumsily attempted to recover from it in my post on June 11, but really I wasn't sure how to proceed. Here I confess that pride to my few readers and apologize for putting up a false confidence.
Now, I can boldly and confidently deliver an answer to you, because I have found the answer. Instead of asserting a point of view, I have attempted to deduce a set of requirements which must be met by any point of view, and then attempted to build a viable point of view with them as a foundation.
So, last time I wrote here, I think I established a need for a Logos. The idea was, "Either there's a Logos, or we can't be sure of anything we know"; and by consequence, "If we can't be sure of anything we know, then we don't know anything. Nothing is certain. There is no truth." That is, within the framework established by my previous posts, we have this Logos. The Logos exists, but we haven't established our ability to know anything yet, necessarily. At the end of my last post, we're similar to agnostic.
At this point, when I say "truth" and "Logos", I am referring to the truth that we've been searching for in all the past posts in the series. Therefore, in the posts following this one, I might make statements that seem circular, such as when answering the question, "How do we know that the Logos exists?", my answer will encompass the lengthy explanations I've already given, so that I don't have to repeat it all. The answer might be: "The Logos exists because the truth exists, and the truth exists because the Logos exists.". This statement seems fallaciously circular if you haven't read my previous posts.
OK OK Here we go -- the meat of the post starts here:
I want to see what we can discover about this Logos simply by deduction (based on the presupposition that "knowledge is possible", or "knowledge of truth is possible"), and by fitting it into the framework that we've established is necessary for the existence of truth and reliability of observation. So, remember: The reason a Logos is necessary is because without it we can't have absolute truth; and nothing can be known. That means that by taking on this endeavor, we've already established that we are not accepting religions wherein there is no Logos, or the Logos is potentially unknowable, such as Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism and Gnosticism.
We know that the Logos must be internally consistent, or else it is not a good foundation on which to build truth, and it does not fulfill the purpose for which we've established it is necessary for Logos to exist. That rules out every religion wherein a deity has either lied or been inconsistent; this includes most of the religions established in Europe and Asia, including the Roman and Greek gods.
The Logos must govern everything, and be consistent with everything. If it doesn't govern and consist with everything, then that thing which is not governed by it is unknowable, and we do not know what is governed and what is not governed by it, so it does not fulfill the requirements of the purpose for which we've established that it is needed. This rules out all religions wherein the deity is impotent, including Hindu, Norse, and Sumerian gods.
We know that the Logos must be observable, but it can't be the physical world and universe, nor can it be completely described as a part of the physical world and universe. We have to be able to observe it because otherwise we don't know that it exists; it can't be the physical world because the physical world is the thing that limits us and establishes a need for a Logos. That rules out a large chunk of the "New Age" religions, including all of those which depend on humanism.
The Logos must have revealed itself to everyone, or else we don't know if it has revealed itself to us or not. The Logos must have revealed itself to us in a way that supersedes our ability to observe its revelation; because otherwise we are again ultimately relying on our ability to observe, and therefore the Logos has not revealed anything to us at all, and we cannot rely on it. This means that everyone equally knows about this Logos, and nobody has an excuse to not know it.
The Logos must have actively revealed itself to us -- not passively. Or else we do not know when a thing we have discovered is the Logos, and when it is not the Logos. This means that the Logos has a will, and therefore has intentions. This rules out every religion wherein the Logos does not have a will of its own, including naturalism, much of the remaining "New Age" religions, Wicca, and most branches of "witchcraft".
The will and self-imposed purpose of the Logos must be self-consistent. This means that there is only one will, or at least that if there are multiple wills then they are all 100% subservient to the one will, and therefore there is only one Logos. This rules out polytheism, including tritheism, but not necessarily trinitarianism.
The revelations of the Logos must be consistent with one another, and it can never have lied to us. It also can never have changed its mind without fulfilling the requirements of its previous intention. Furthermore, the immaterial revelations of the Logos must be available to everyone, in all history, unceasingly. That rules out Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, and any branch of Christianity wherein there was a "prophet" whose prophesy was false or disagreed with another prophet's prophesy, or wherein there is supposed to have been an apostasy, or else there's ultimately no way for us to know that we are not still apostate, because for many centuries people have experienced the influence and revelations of a Logos in their lives.
The Logos must have a reason for everything it does. If the Logos ever acts without reason, then its revelations are inconsistent. Since we've established that it must have revealed itself, then that means that it must have had a reason for revealing itself. That means that the Logos "wanted", for some reason, to be revealed to us, which means that it desires to be known by us. Since the Logos has desires, it means that it has a character. The above requirements collectively rule out an "impersonal God".
Since the Logos must have revealed itself, for the reasons above, it is very likely that at least one of the major religions has it right. However, if more than one of the major religions has it right, then they must be so consistent with one another that it is extremely unlikely that two such religions exist.
The above list is not "complete" or "comprehensive". It is, I think, the logical conclusion to a world where we presuppose that knowledge is possible. Without the above, there can be no science. Unless all of the above requirements are met, we have no foundation for our knowledge, and therefore can not be confident in knowing anything, and therefore we have no absolute truth, and therefore as far as we are concerned there is no truth, and can we know nothing.
Is there any religion which meets the above requirements? I am only aware of one.
"Let me put you on hold for just a quick second."
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment