St. Paul, too, recognizing an opportunity: "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." The Greek myth is answered by revelation, but the myth was helpful. Law is the same way; helpful but not enough.
Because there are kinds of agnostics, there are different kinds of responses. I recall Bouilhet once saying in a post, "To me, the best one can say is, 'That which I do not know exists, may exist.'" At the time he wrote that, Bouilhet's response was something like Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Silence won't do for a young heart.
Bouilhet also mentions William Blake's response, which is also expressed in the Robert Redford film, A River Runs Through It: even though we cannot understand another person perfectly, we can love them perfectly. If that's true, there is at least some understanding to begin with. (Where to begin? asks Calvin in the Institutes.) Knowing in part is also part of Aristotle's ethics. Aristotle resorts to a provisional (or practical) human ethic. Are people happy after they die? They might be, he says. Hard to tell, he says, and then goes on. In this way, Aristotle is one of the Greeks who gave to Western Civilization a humanism that is not secular, exactly the opposite of what is nowadays meant by humanism: an "enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him." And while Solzhenitsyn notes that out of this autonomy man is made "the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth" we see another kind of response They taught such an ethic because they understood the need in themselves for a ground and the origin of truth for the self outside themselves. So even betty boop at one time said, "It seems that both Plato and Aristotle had a Source from which they were able to draw their most profound insights into the nature of man, the structure of consciousness, etc. This does have the quality of revelation, for they recognized this." Honesty is helpful. Someone like the post general_re is probably still stuck: "Look, even if I accept the existence of revelation, upon what basis do I evaluate the truth of that which is revealed to me?
What general_re does accept is insufficient, according to Solzhenitsyn.
In contrast to genera_re, there is Socrates. It came from Socrates' admitted ignorance. After exhausting the capabilities of rational/mathematicl/logical thinking, he realized he was ignorant of what he wanted to know. Did the shoemakers know what man is? No. Did the horsetrainers? No. Did the politicians? No. Did the poets? No. It was an open question, without stability. The answer to what human nature was appeared relative to anyone who could offer an opinion. Three options were left to him after that: either to ignore that the knowledge of our human nature is insignificant (that required schizophrenia) or, to create a substitute (that required arrogance). He settled on the third option, which is called Socratic piety, awaiting an answer from those who did know.
Doubting Thomas was an apostle, too.
However, I would hasten to add that his doubt was a perilous obstruction to his spiritual life. Indeed, Jesus specially proved Himself to Thomas so that he could believe:
As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. - Mark 5:36
Beautifully put, dear Cornelis. Certainly Aristotle did not regard himself as autonomous "from any higher force above him."
Aristotle expresses his "non-secular humanism" wonderfully in De Partibus Animalium. An excerpt:
...Of things constituted by nature some are ungenerated, imperishable, and eternal, while others are subject to generation and decay. The former are excellent beyond compare and divine, but less accessible to knowledge. The evidence that might throw light on them, and on the problems which we long to solve respecting them, is furnished but scantily by sensation; whereas respecting perishable plants and animals we have abundant information, living as we do in their midst, and ample data may be collected concerning all their various kinds, if only we are willing to take sufficient pains. Both departments, however, have their special charm. The scanty conceptions to which we can attain of celestial things give us, from their excellence, more pleasure than all our knowledge of the world in which we live; just as a half glimpse of persons that we love is more delightful than a leisurely view of other things, whatever their number and dimensions. On the other hand, in certitude and in completeness our knowledge of terrestrial things has the advantage. Moreover, their greater nearness and affinity to us balances somewhat the loftier interest of the heavenly things that are the objects of the higher philosophy. Having already treated of the celestial world, as far as our conjectures could reach, we proceed to treat of animals, without omitting, to the best of our ability, any member of the kingdom, however ignoble. For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet even these, by disclosing to intellectual perception the artistic spirit that designed them, give immense pleasure to all who can trace links of causation, and are inclined to philosophy. Indeed, it would be strange if mimic representations of them were attractive, because they disclose the mimetic skill of the painter or sculptor, and the original realities themselves were not more interesting, to all at any rate who have eyes to discern the reasons that determined their formation. We therefore must not recoil with childish aversion from the examination of the humbler animals. Every realm of nature is marvellous: and as Heraclitus, when the strangers who came to visit him found him warming himself at the furnace in the kitchen and hesitated to go in, reported to have bidden them not to be afraid to enter, as even in that kitchen divinities were present, so we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful. Absence of haphazard and conduciveness of everything to an end are to be found in Nature's works in the highest degree, and the resultant end of her generations and combinations is a form of the beautiful....Seems to me Aristotle held the pneumatic and noetic modes of perception in fruitful correspondence and balance. Certainly, he is no "secularist."
"Knowing in part" is mandatory, given the human condition. It seems to me the more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know.
But life's for learning....
Thanks so much for writing, dear Cornelis! It's great to see you again.