No, no - I try not to limit myself like that. Any sort of revealed truth, Christian or otherwise, suffices for my purposes here.
He lets us know he doesn't think much of it.
True. Look, even if I accept the existence of revelation, upon what basis do I evaluate the truth of that which is revealed to me? Well, I'm not really supposed to do that - revelation is true by definition, rather conveniently. And then I'm supposed to go forth and reason, based on revealed truths that I have no rational basis for accepting as true, except for a definition that dances right on the edge of tautology.
Well, if that's the case, that reason is predicated on axioms that I am expected to accept as true without any proof that they are true (which it is, of course), how do I know that revealed truths are a better basis for reason than axioms I invent myself, and which I also have no rational basis for believing to be true? Oh, wait - I know that revealed truth is better than my own bootstrapped axioms because it's...revealed. Or something equally circular.
And there's the problem. It's great if you already believe as Voegelin believes, but if you don't, the best anyone can come up with is "just take my word for it". Which is more or less exactly what Voegelin was saying in the bit I quoted in my very first post, and what I object to. Either reality and truth are objective, and objectively accessible to all men regardless of their particulars, or it they aren't, in which case the whole question of what reality and truth are is meaningless from the start, other than giving us the trivially true answer that "opinions will vary"....
The "revealed truth" is neither "revealed" nor "true" for a person if it does not evoke an answering response in his or her spirit and mind. Revelation is an appeal to man; he doesn't have to respond. If it is God making the appeal to us, then it seems to me, well, prudent not to hold that appeal in contempt -- even if one cannot respond directly to the appeal oneself.
Is this a cartesian mediation?
Hi there general and betty. I was just listening in to the conversation and I hope you will pardon the interjection.
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?
One remark I would like to make regarding revelation is that it is not mere private or subjective experience, although it is not exclusive of it. 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.
Cordially,