Marbaniang, Domenic

From Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007) by Domenic Marbaniang The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge that between analytical and synthetic judgments once established, Kant easily proceeded to show that the quality of a priori did not just belong to analytical judgments but to some synthetic judgments too. Since these synthetic judgments like “2+2=4”, “Every effect has a cause”, and “Bodies occupy space” contained, according to Kant, predicates not contained in the subject, they meant added information; in other words the possession of knowledge a priori . According to Kant, then, these a priori data formed the conditions according to which all other empirical data were interpreted and understood by the mind. The world as one sees or perceives as a result is nothing but what the mind determines it to look as. Space and time are not objective realities but subjective forms of intuition in which all data is arranged by the mind. Thus, the mind is not able to conce

Modern studies in functions of the human brain have revealed that memory, understanding, reasoning, and imagination are all functions of the brain. Different parts of the brain are seen to possess different functions. The upper part of the brain, cerebrum, is associated with voluntary and conscious properties; the lower part, cerebellum, is associated with unconscious properties. [1] The cerebrum is divided into two hemispheres: the left and the right. The left brain functions are number skills, written and spoken language, reasoning, scientific skills, and right-hand control. The right brain functions are insight, 3-D forms, art awareness, imagination, music awareness, and left-hand control. [2] Damage to any part of the brain can result in an impairment of the particular function associated with that part. Obviously, such a view of brain has led to several philosophical problems like the identity and reality of self, the survival of self, the epistemic certainty of matter-generated

The major challenges to the problem of reality in modern physics have come from the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The philosophical importance of both of their results will be overviewed here in order to appraise their contributions to metaphysics. 2.2.1. The Theory of Relativity. The theory of relativity is a theory of space, time and motion. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) published his paper on the special theory of relativity in 1905, in which he mathematically proved that motion is relative and not absolute. For this he assumed that light has a constant velocity that is never relative to any moving body. This, however, was not just an hypothesis for its factuality was proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment that the velocity of light was never affected by the velocity of the moving body emitting the light itself. [1] Another important principle on which the theory is based is that: a coordinate system (that with reference to which motion is measured) that is moved un

Evolutionism concerns the problem of the origin and nature of living reality. Evolutionism, in science, refers to the theory that ‘the many complex organisms now existent descended or evolved from relatively fewer and simpler organisms.’ [1] The hypothetical nature of evolutionism, despite accruement of evidences in support yet inability to verify in prediction or through experimentation, has led some to label it as being not a scientific theory but a philosophical one. [2] Supposed evidence for organic evolution comes from comparative anatomy, study of vestigial remains, embryology, blood and fluid tests of animals, examination of fossils, study of geographical distribution, domestication and experimentation, and classification. [3] The theory of evolution doesn’t simply end at ‘the fewer and simpler organisms’. The ultimate problem is how life itself originated. The religious or purely philosophical answers do not concern scientific metaphysics. However, though evolutionism has been

Epistemology of science is that branch of philosophy of science that concerns the study of the nature and scope of scientific methodology, scientific knowledge, and scientific language. 1.1. Scientific Methodology It is evident that science has existed since time immemorial. History bears record of great scientific accomplishments that humans have achieved in past three millenia. However, the modern generation has witnessed a greater rapidity of scientific progress than previous generations. Moreover, there has also been considerations about scientific research and methodology. This has also given rise to several problems in the epistemology of science. 1.1.1. The Problem of Induction. Francis Bacon (1561-1626), regarded as one of the pioneers of modern scientific thought, in his Novum Organum, laid down principles for an empirical method of science that emphasized induction through observation and experimentation. [1] According to Bacon, hypothesis follows empirical observation and

A study of the Bible shows that authentic revelation is chiefly verbal. By this is not meant that visions, dreams, theophanies, miracles, and spiritual understanding have not been means of divine communication. What is meant is that revelation comes in an authentic, reliable, and knowable form only through verbal communication. Even in visions, dreams, and supernatural phenomena what ultimately constitutes revelation is verbal testimony. 8.1. General Revelation Vs Revelation as Verbal Testimony Nature cannot be revelatory of God in the same way that a watch is revelatory of a watch maker. Still in the case of the watch, one can have no idea of the specific watch maker, unless first of all he already knows the watchmaker or the watchmaker has inscribed his name on the watch. As far as nature is concerned, for some it may point to a Creator initially, but if the reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion then an entanglement in cosmology and ontology only proves to be a rational vexati

Emil Brunner sees revelation as not contained in some objective and controllable text or system. To him revelation is the event of divine-human encounter. 3.1. The Meaning of Revelation To Brunner, revelation always means that something, unusual and particular, is made known. [1] 3.1.1. Biblical revelation is the unexpected ‘disclosure’ of God in an unconditional form. One could not have expected along any rational line that God should love, and give his love to a sinner. [2] In revelation, one encounters God himself and not some set of abstract ideas. 3.1.2. Since revelation is not by human efforts but given by God, God becomes the Lord over the believer in revelation. Man cannot be called master of the revelation; he could never have known it. It is God who reveals; it is God who is Master. [3] 3.2. General Revelation and Natural Theology According to Brunner, the teaching of general revelation very clearly given in the Bible. However, while the Bible teaches a general revelation, i

For Karl Barth divine revelation is Christ and Christ alone. Apart from the revelation of God in Christ, mankind has no hope of in any way coming to a knowledge of divine reality. There are various themes connected to the development of this kind of a theology of revelation. 2.1. Propositional or Personal Revelation? For Barth revelation is not proposition but personal. Revelation is not about creeds but of God himself. One is not called to confess the faith of the Church but called to believe and confess God Himself. [1] Revelation is not an objective something out there. It is something that happens. [2] To Barth, revelation is a concrete, not abstract, knowledge of God and man in the event brought about by the initiative of a sovereign God. [3] Only in the Incarnation does one encounter the Word of God as the Revelation of God himself. The knowledge of God is grounded in God himself, not in nature, history, or human words. 2.2. The Rejection of General Revelation and Natural Theo

For Charles Hodge philosophy, science, and theology are not at variance with each other. Therefore, the Scriptures must be interpreted in accordance with established facts. 1.1. The Possibility and Necessity of Supernatural Revelation Hodge contends that supernatural revelation is both possible and necessary. Contrary to the deistic concept of a distant and removed God, the ‘Bible reveals a God who is constantly and everywhere present with his works, and who acts upon them, not only mediately, but immediately, when, where, and how He sees fit.’ [1] Therefore, it is also possible for God to reveal himself to man. The necessity of supernatural revelation is something felt and anticipated by man. Humans have questions concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of man which reason and philosophy is not able to satisfactorily resolve. Therefore, revelation is necessary and anticipated. 1.2. The Role of Reason in Revelation 1.2.1. Reason Necessary for the Reception of Revelation. Revelatio

Chronological snobbery , a term coined by friends  C. S. Lewis and  Owen Barfield , is a logical argument (and usually when thus termed, considered an outright  fallacy ) describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is  inherently inferior when compared to that of the present. ......................... Pattern The form of the chronological snobbery fallacy can be expressed as follows: It is argued that A implies B. A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C. C is clearly false. Therefore, A does not imply B. Source: Wikipedia _____________________________________________________________________ Examples of chronological snobbery used against Christianity: 1. The Bible is an old book, and so is outdated and not applicable for modern society. I once heard this classic answer to this: The sun is very old as well, but its light and heat is still fresh every morning. And, someone else replied, "What

"building yourselves up on your most holy faith"   Jude 20 In Galatians 3, Paul asks the Galatians how it had happened that they had begun in faith, in the Spirit, but now had been bewitched to end up in the flesh. These believers had not been careful to continue in their faith. Their life had failed to logically relate to their original faith. Historically, the Crusades and the Inquisitions were examples of the Church failing in the logic of Faith. In the personal Christian life, when the believer fails to derive his principles of practice from the originality of Gospel faith, his faith-life has run a shipwreck. It's like the Christian in Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress who is detracted from the path of the Cross by the Worldly Wiseman. In the case of the Galatians, it was the Judaizers who tried to introduce Jewish rituals and rites as mandatory into the Church. If we have begun our Christian life in faith, we can only grow if we keep ourselves in that faith. If we have b