From the author's online book Explorations of Faith (2009).
Obviously, one’s way of looking at life is largely determined by one’s pre-understanding. It influences one’s way of thinking.
One’s framework of beliefs, or worldview, determines to a great extent one’s interpretation of reality; for reality is never taken as it is – all belief is interpreted reality since reality by itself and in itself lacks meaning. Meaning is always found in a relation of things; that relating of things is interpretation. But meaning imposed (eisogesis) is not true meaning; for instance, a man may see a man picking a candy from a store and say he was stealing it, when in fact he may be the owner of the store. Meaning discovered (exegesis) is the only true meaning. False beliefs can lead to false conclusions. For instance, to an atheistic existentialist this universe is absurd, human life is absurd, and all toil is an illogical enterprise. However, the worldview of an atheist is itself composed of several beliefs that are the result of interpretation – mainly of secondary information (i.e. chiefly through mimesis, i.e. imitation of popular beliefs or flowing with the cultural milieu). The historical development of the atheistic cultural milieu in the Universities needs no particular reference here. It all took impetus from the Enlightenment as we know. With each new interpretation, the atheistic grid of interpretation was modified. The modifying atheistic worldview took many forms: nihilism, fascism, Marxism, evolutionism, scientism, existentialism, etc. Thus, beliefs determine interpretation until the framework itself is doubted and a revolution in the pattern of thinking is secured....
There are several different worldviews in the world: e.g. Hindu karmic worldview, Hindu reformed worldview, Buddhist worldview, spiritualist worldview, occultic worldview, liberal worldview, Pentecostal worldview, secular worldview, MTV culture worldview, etc. Each way of looking at life is distinct in itself. Each framework has developed its own method of contextual interpretation as well. Here we see two aspects of interpretation: rational and contextual. While rational interpretation is absolute involving the laws of reason, contextual interpretation is relative, i.e. relative to the framework; for instance, the karmic interpretation of time, liberal
interpretation of the Bible, etc.
Such plurality of interpretive grids makes pluralism very attractive. But pluralism, or the belief that all belief-systems are valid ways in themselves, is an interpretive grid that attempts to overrule the others without their consent. Therefore, its ruling is objected by most who deny their way as equal to the others. Test of correspondence, coherence, consistency, and pragmatic value do help to a great extent; however, their significance is overruled by particular world-views; for instance, the non-dualist view admits neither the reality of the phenomenal world nor the effability (able to be expressed in words) of ultimate reality; thus, disannulling all the above stated tests of truth. But none of the views can violate the fundamental laws of logic without violating themselves. For instance, the law of non-contradiction doesn’t exist, I at the same time deny myself the right to make such a statement since by making that statement I assume that its contradictory statement “the law of non-contradiction” exists is false. But to accept such opposites is to assume the law of non-contradiction which was being denied earlier. Thus, this law is inescapable. Even if someone said that knowledge is not mental but transcends the logical limits of the mind and so cannot be expressed in language, such assertion itself assumes the law of non-contradiction; thus, the fundamental nature of rational rules is established.
Inconsistency or incoherence within the framework due to an acquirement or realization of a particular truth can cause doubt eventually leading to a faith-crisis. This faith-crisis is helpful, if accompanied by honesty, to revolutionize one’s way of thinking. However, one may also choose to be committed to the prior belief-system and reject the truth that now presents to him by suppressing it or trying to destroy it. But when mixed with truthfulness (honesty), faith-crisis can lead to truth. Thus, doubt when accompanied by a will-to-meaning propels investigation and facilitates openness to truth.
Rationality of belief is a fundamental responsibility of man. For that determines the nature of his decisions. True faith is never irrational (i.e., in conflict with itself and in conflict with rational acceptability), though not limited by reason. Common faith, however, is quite different from the faith of God as will be seen. In fact, the faith of God is more rational (coherent to one’s framework of knowledge and convincing to the heart) than the rationality of other beliefs. That is the reason why the writer of Hebrews says that faith in God is substance and evidence; not just conjecture and interpretation.
Obviously, one’s way of looking at life is largely determined by one’s pre-understanding. It influences one’s way of thinking.
One’s framework of beliefs, or worldview, determines to a great extent one’s interpretation of reality; for reality is never taken as it is – all belief is interpreted reality since reality by itself and in itself lacks meaning. Meaning is always found in a relation of things; that relating of things is interpretation. But meaning imposed (eisogesis) is not true meaning; for instance, a man may see a man picking a candy from a store and say he was stealing it, when in fact he may be the owner of the store. Meaning discovered (exegesis) is the only true meaning. False beliefs can lead to false conclusions. For instance, to an atheistic existentialist this universe is absurd, human life is absurd, and all toil is an illogical enterprise. However, the worldview of an atheist is itself composed of several beliefs that are the result of interpretation – mainly of secondary information (i.e. chiefly through mimesis, i.e. imitation of popular beliefs or flowing with the cultural milieu). The historical development of the atheistic cultural milieu in the Universities needs no particular reference here. It all took impetus from the Enlightenment as we know. With each new interpretation, the atheistic grid of interpretation was modified. The modifying atheistic worldview took many forms: nihilism, fascism, Marxism, evolutionism, scientism, existentialism, etc. Thus, beliefs determine interpretation until the framework itself is doubted and a revolution in the pattern of thinking is secured....
There are several different worldviews in the world: e.g. Hindu karmic worldview, Hindu reformed worldview, Buddhist worldview, spiritualist worldview, occultic worldview, liberal worldview, Pentecostal worldview, secular worldview, MTV culture worldview, etc. Each way of looking at life is distinct in itself. Each framework has developed its own method of contextual interpretation as well. Here we see two aspects of interpretation: rational and contextual. While rational interpretation is absolute involving the laws of reason, contextual interpretation is relative, i.e. relative to the framework; for instance, the karmic interpretation of time, liberal
interpretation of the Bible, etc.
Such plurality of interpretive grids makes pluralism very attractive. But pluralism, or the belief that all belief-systems are valid ways in themselves, is an interpretive grid that attempts to overrule the others without their consent. Therefore, its ruling is objected by most who deny their way as equal to the others. Test of correspondence, coherence, consistency, and pragmatic value do help to a great extent; however, their significance is overruled by particular world-views; for instance, the non-dualist view admits neither the reality of the phenomenal world nor the effability (able to be expressed in words) of ultimate reality; thus, disannulling all the above stated tests of truth. But none of the views can violate the fundamental laws of logic without violating themselves. For instance, the law of non-contradiction doesn’t exist, I at the same time deny myself the right to make such a statement since by making that statement I assume that its contradictory statement “the law of non-contradiction” exists is false. But to accept such opposites is to assume the law of non-contradiction which was being denied earlier. Thus, this law is inescapable. Even if someone said that knowledge is not mental but transcends the logical limits of the mind and so cannot be expressed in language, such assertion itself assumes the law of non-contradiction; thus, the fundamental nature of rational rules is established.
Inconsistency or incoherence within the framework due to an acquirement or realization of a particular truth can cause doubt eventually leading to a faith-crisis. This faith-crisis is helpful, if accompanied by honesty, to revolutionize one’s way of thinking. However, one may also choose to be committed to the prior belief-system and reject the truth that now presents to him by suppressing it or trying to destroy it. But when mixed with truthfulness (honesty), faith-crisis can lead to truth. Thus, doubt when accompanied by a will-to-meaning propels investigation and facilitates openness to truth.
Rationality of belief is a fundamental responsibility of man. For that determines the nature of his decisions. True faith is never irrational (i.e., in conflict with itself and in conflict with rational acceptability), though not limited by reason. Common faith, however, is quite different from the faith of God as will be seen. In fact, the faith of God is more rational (coherent to one’s framework of knowledge and convincing to the heart) than the rationality of other beliefs. That is the reason why the writer of Hebrews says that faith in God is substance and evidence; not just conjecture and interpretation.
Comments
Post a Comment