Faith Without Reasons?
A Review of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/27/2005 7:37:48 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/28/2005 2:50:34 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (JEE) : 1/28/2005 3:13:21 PM (GMT-6)

Tom:There are no purely objective truths, i.e., truths that exist apart from any sentient being’s knowing them to be true. There are only subjective truths. But there are subjective truths that are universally true. What truths you ask? Those truths God knows. Apart from God, or some other sentient being’s knowing it to be the case, there is no propositional truth of the matter about anything. If some the truth of some proposition is absolutely unknown (even by God), then it doesn’t exist. There is no truth of the matter. But since God exists and knows all, truths exist to be known. But even God’s knowledge is subjective. Infallible, yes, but God is still a subject and knows what he knows as a subject, God. My point is, all knowledge is subjective knowledge. All. All. All. There IS no pure, absolute, objective knowledge to be had.

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/28/2005 5:51:43 PM (GMT-6)

This is new territory for me, so buckle your seats...

Tom: There are no purely objective truths, i.e., truths that exist apart from any sentient being’s knowing them to be true. There are only subjective truths. But there are subjective truths that are universally true. What truths you ask? Those truths God knows. Apart from God, or some other sentient being’s knowing it to be the case, there is no propositional truth of the matter about anything. If some the truth of some proposition is absolutely unknown (even by God), then it doesn’t exist. There is no truth of the matter. But since God exists and knows all, truths exist to be known. But even God’s knowledge is subjective. Infallible, yes, but God is still a subject and knows what he knows as a subject, God. My point is, all knowledge is subjective knowledge. All. All. All. There IS no pure, absolute, objective knowledge to be had.

Ross: I think that this is where the discussion hinges. I think that this is the position of Modes (I could be wrong) -- that there is no true "objective truth." And if you define objective truth as "truths that exist apart from any sentient being’s knowing them to be true" then any theist who believes in God's omniscience would have to agree with you.

Tom: I’m assuming that truth is, be definition, an object of knowledge. Without a knower, there is no knowing and so no known. If nothing is known (and that can only by a subjective knowing—all knowing is subjective), then there are no truths, since truths require a knower to create them. There would be states of affairs and relations, but with no sentient being around to contemplate these states of affairs, there would exist no truths describing them.

Ross: But I have never heard anyone define objective truth this way. The working definition I have in mind when I speak of objective truth is truth that is universal, that is true for everybody. I'm thinking about something like the moral law-- is morality objective (universal) or subjective (up to the individual).

Tom: Yeah, I think there IS such truth for everybody. I’m just saying it doesn’t exist apart from God’s subjective experience and willing. THAT experience, i.e., God’s subjectivity, and what God believes to be true and false about the world (about right and wrong, good and evil, plus his knowledge of his own will)—which are SUBJECTIVE beliefs even though they’re God’s—defines what IS true universally for everybody. So there is UNIVERSAL truth that stands outside OUR experience, and it’s objective TO US, but it doesn’t stand outside SOME sentient being’s subjectivity, i.e., GOD’S. And God’s beliefs are subjective. So even behind what we call universal ‘objective’ truth is God’s subjective appropriation of and will for the world. So there are no ‘objective’ truths that are objective (outside of) ANY subject’s experience and will.

Talk to me Modes.

Alan, for crying out subjectivity, where are you!

Ross: I would agree with what you are trying to say, but perhaps modify the wording. Instead of having the either/or of objective/subjective, I would say that truth is both -- subjective because every truth is known by a sentinent being and furthermore dependent on a sentinent being (God); objective because there is a "setness" to the truth--it is based in the reality that God perfectly knows.

Tom: OK, I’ll concede that there are objective states of affairs, i.e., and objective reality. Yes. But there are no truths, i.e., propositions, positing these states of affairs just in case there is no subjective and sentient appropriation of those states of affairs. And for sure there can be more universal moral standard apart from the divine subjectivity (God’s own experience and willing). So, in the end, all TRUTH (propositional and moral) is subjective, for it springs to life out of God’s experience and willing. It’s just that God’s subjective appropriation of reality is infallible, so his beliefs reflect the world as it is.

So, there are no objective truths, i.e., truths that exist apart from ANY subjective and sentient experience.

Even laboratory experience, the hard cold “facts” of science, are subjectively studied and known. There is NO purely objective truth to be had. But this doesn’t have to mean there are no truths outside MY own experience and no moral standards outside MY own willing and desiring. It just means there is at least ONE subjective experience of the world that gives rise to universal propositional truth (God’s), and at least ONE subjective willing for the world that gives rise to a universal moral standard (God’s).

Of course, what makes it especially FUN it is that there’s no stepping outside our own subjectivity when seeking to discover this universal propositional knowledge and universal moral will of God’s.

So what the frickola am I saying!

MOOOOOODES!

Tom

Tom, thanks for the response. It looks like we are both saying the same thing, our difference seems to be semanitcs.

I gave a working definition of what I mean when I say "objective truth". I found a definition in Moreland and Craig's Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview that goes along with what I was trying to say.

"Those who claim that truth does not vary from person to person, group to group, accept absolute truth, also called objective truth. On this view, people discover truth, they do not create it, and a claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independent of whether the claim is accepted by anyone. Moreover, an absolute truth conforms to the three fundamental laws of logic, which are themselves absolute truths." (pg 132)

So I think that you will have to be careful with statements like "all truth is subjective" because of the meaning that people will associate with your phrase.

Ross: I found a definition in Moreland and Craig's Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview that goes along with what I was trying to say: "Those who claim that truth does not vary from person to person, group to group, accept absolute truth, also called objective truth. On this view, people discover truth, they do not create it, and a claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independent of whether the claim is accepted by anyone. Moreover, an absolute truth conforms to the three fundamental laws of logic, which are themselves absolute truths." (pg 132)

Tom: I’d agree that “truth” doesn’t vary from person to personl, and I'm happy to call this "objective" truth. But a) there's no knowing this apart from subjective appropriation of it, and b) it derives its existence "as truth" from God's subjective experience and knowledge of the world.

Given what Alan and I were talking about with respect to our paper regarding Craig’s view of truth as correspondence, this seems like a surprising statement from Craig. If he believes propositional truths are “made true by reality itself” then what makes presently true “will” and “will not” propositions about future contingents true? (This is another subject). 

Ross: But when I read Modes' statements, I get the sense that he is saying more than this point. When Modes says that fides qua can remain unchanged in the face of doubt about fides quae, I have to disagree. If I believe that God is malevolent (quae) then my faith in Him (qua) will suffer.

Tom: I see your point. Yeah, this makes sense. There comes some point when shifting content of fides quae really MUST undermine fides qua. Perhaps SOME doubt in quae is compatible with continuing qua. I believe God is sovereign (ala openness) even if I have some doubt in the particular content that a theodicy correctly expressing this possess. I guess that just qua in the face of less than perfect answers. But trusting ‘qua’ in a malevolent God? That doesn’t work.

Tom