general, do you deny the reality of de se knowledge? Or do you think it right logically, from your world-view, that theoretically all knowledge, given the right circuitry, could be publicly accessible?
Good question. I am hesitant to express a firm opinion, since this is essentially calling for my prognostication about what the future holds. As it stands now, I think that it is highly likely that there are things that we will never understand about the universe around us. This should not be taken as a reason to shut down and stop expanding the boundaries of what we know, however - if such a line exists, I do not know where it is. What I do know is that we aren't there yet. ;)
But this is a highly speculative position, of course. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that such a line, even if it exists now, will exist tomorrow. Who knows what tools and methods for examining the world around us will be available tomorrow, or in a hundred years, or a thousand? For all I know, God Himself has left His signature on the universe in such a way that the source is unquestionable and undeniable given the objective application of reason, but we simply don't have the tools to see it yet.
To give you a sort of understanding of the sorts of conceptual problems we have in dealing with the universe, the nearest star to us is 4.3 light-years away, give or take. That's about 7,854,437,234,000 miles. Now, although I can post that number, and we can all marvel at its size, it is plainly impossible to grasp the full meaning this sort of enormous distance in human terms - "human terms" just don't cover that sort of scope. If you tell me your house is a mile down the road, I have some sense of that distance from experience, and I understand the implications of "a mile". Or, if you tell me your city is about 500 miles from some other sort of city, I have some sense of that distance, and I understand the implications of that statement. But posting the number "7,854,437,234,000" does not give us a sense of just how enormously far that is. Grasping that sort of scope is not something our minds are attuned to do.
But, if someone invents that wonderful Star Trek warp drive tomorrow, such that the nearest star is twenty minutes away, that changes things radically. I have a very good conception of what "twenty minutes" means - I'm about a twenty minute drive from downtown, if the traffic is cooperating. Suddenly, that enormous and ungraspable distance has been rendered into human terms, and what seems to be incomprehensible is understandable. That doesn't mean I suddenly grasp how far 7,854,437,234,000 miles is, but it does mean that I don't really have to any more - I can sidestep that gap in my ability to conceptualize, given the right tools.
Which is why I hesitate to draw firm conclusions in this area. As it stands now, there is much we cannot understand. But I can't say what will be tomorrow. Whenever I am pessimistic about such things, I remind myself of what Faulkner once said - "I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail." So we shall have to wait and see. ;)
Revelation includes events in space/time history that are the subject of claimed eyewitness reportage. In other words, historical events are available to public scrutiny, and therefore transcend the circularity of reason alone.
True. Then the question becomes one of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Agreed. Thanks for your reply. And even then the objective evidence is filtered through our respective colored glasses. It has been my experience, which I hope is (or should be) always regulated by Revelation, that fallen human nature in a perverse sort of way subjects revelation and all other historical evidence to it own criteria for the purpose of retaining independence and autonomy from the Creator. I think it is safe to say that it is the Christian point of view that in our natural state of alienation from God, we tend to reject evidence that interferes with our natural desire to remain independent of Him. As the old saying goes,
"A man convinced against his WILL
is of the same opinion still."
So when Saint Peter asserts that, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16) we can evaluate that historical evidence till we're blue in the face, but sometimes with regard to any particular individual it comes down to, not whether the evidence is sufficiently credible, (I believe it is, of course) but simply to the matter of whether or not that individual wishes remain independent of what God has said about the subject. In my view, since there is a Creator who has spoken, then it makes sense that His revelation of Himself is not subject to our criteria, we are subject to it. Circular? Maybe. But no less circular than the view of one who opposes the view. Just my two cents. Thanks again for your reply.
Cordially,