Jeff at The Dawn Treader has posted a very good four part series up on the subject of the Criterion, or how we can claim to know anything.
See the following -
- The problem of the Criterion, part one
- The problem of the Criterion, part two
- The problem of the Criterion, part three
- The problem of the Criterion, part four
The purpose of something is A and B. Therefore, Y: Not A Not B Therefore, not YThis is a valid refutation. It says nothing about being unable to attribute any purpose to anything, however. There may yet be a purpose to the object in question that we will assent to. Of course someone using scientific methodism will not consent to things having purpose if he can't squeeze the idea of purpose through the evaluative criteria he has set up. That's not a refutation, however, because his criteria are just as unfounded as the notion of purpose. His criteria and the question of purpose are both questions of faith. Without faith, thought can't get off the ground. It becomes an infinite regress: "I think that I think, that I think... " Richard Dawkins, a famous proponent of material evolution, is as guilty of curve fitting as Behe when he goes on and on about how it is possible that radomness, given enough time, etc. Well, yes. It is possible - and possibility is not proof. Ultimately proof comes from faith. There is either and unmoved mover who is the Criterion, who gives us radical freedom and true knowledge in a caused universe, or there is no Criterion and we are robots fumbling in the dark. Without Grace, it's tough to pick. With Grace, it's not so tough. The shrouded Church during Lent is hard to look at because it's a reminder of what we have been given, and what we are at risk of losing: Grace, from which we gain our very existence, our freedom, our ability to know, and our ability to love and be loved.
Comments