Prolegomena: Reality, Language, & Interpretation

Prolegomena:Reality, Language, & Interpretation Caravaggio, “Doubting Thomas"

Respond to the following quote: “Happy is the man who can approach his Bible as free from predilections, prejudices, and biases as it is possible to do, humanly speaking.” ~ Dr. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 85.

Reality at its most basic level is that which exists or “that which is.” Therefore, reality is connected to the following order of disciplines: Hermeneutics: How do we understand what is communicated. Linguistics is how do we communicate what we know. Epistemology is how do we know that which is. Metaphysics is what is that which is (the nature of existence). Reality is that which exists (or is).

Why do people disagree about what the Bible says? Some say it is because, in part, our preconditions. Each of us interpret reality though “lenses”, “prisms”, or preconditions each of us possess. Some even go so far to say we “construct reality.” These preconditions include the following: Presuppositions: Fixed biases that do not change unless placed under extreme duress. Preunderstandings: Moldable influences that come and go (authority; situatedness). Noetic effects of sin: The effects of sin upon the mind.

Direct Realism: We are able to compare and correlate our theories with independent reality. WORLDVIEWS & REALITY Skepticism shakes the head in disbelief & suspicion. Agnosticism isolates the head from reality; we can only know appearances, not reality. Postmodernism ignores the truth; they turn their head away from reality to “construct” their own reality. Pluralism affirms “all” truth (s); they nod affirmatively to every claim of reality. Relativism does not use the head

Respond to the following statements: “I would like to know the truth about that?” “How can we judge that something is true or false?” 1. Is it even possible to know? 2. Can you only marginally know? 3. Can you objectively know? 4. Is experimentation the only way to know the truth about something? 5. If you are not able to objectively know, then are you still able to accurately know? 6. If you are not able to objectively know, then are you left with really not knowing at all? 7. If you can’t know, then are you really a nihilist?

“I would like to know the truth about that?” Consider the following: • The phrase “to know the truth” is redundant because “to know” is to have in one’s mind the truth about the object one is trying to know. • “False knowledge” is impossible because it wouldn’t be knowledge if it were false. • “True knowledge” is redundant because to know is to have the truth.

Skepticism: • Skepticism is an attitude take toward the problem of the pursuit of truth: • There is nothing true or false; • Everything is equally true and false; • We are unable to know what is true or what is false; • We simple don’t have the knowledge or possess the truth.

Against Skepticism: “Can a person lie deliberately without at least thinking that he knows something to be true, that he has some grasp of the truth? Could he tell a lie if he didn’t think that he had a grasp of the truth?” ~ Mortimer J. Adler, How to Think about the Great Ideas, pg. 3.

Against Skepticism: “You all have a pretty clear notion of what truth is. Let me show you that do by reminding you of the distinction between truth telling and lying. Everyone of us has told a lie. Everyone of us knows how to lie And everyone of us knows the difference between lying and telling the truth. We know that if we say something is the case when it is not, or that it is no the case when it is, we are lying…. And you can see then that lying is a lack of correspondence between what one thinks and what one says.” ~Ibid., 3.

Adler later states: “Remember now in telling the truth, in order to tell the truth, we must achieve a correspondence between our words, our speech, and our thought. We speak truthfully when our speech corresponds or conforms to what we think. And there is truth in communication between persons when, in using words, their two minds correspond with one another. The ideas in one person’s mind correspond to the ideas in the other.” Ibid., 4.

Consider Freud’s Response to Skepticism: • For Freud skepticism is intellectual anarchy: “If it were really a matter of indifference what we believe, then we might just as well build our bridges of cardboard as of stone, or inject a tenth of a gram of morphine into a patient instead of a hundredth, or take teargas as a narcotic instead of ether; but the intellectual anarchists themselves [skeptic] would strongly repudiate any such practical implications of their theory.” Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Consider Relativism: • Some things that are true for you are false for me, and what may be true for me is false for you, and what was once true some other period of history or in some other culture is no longer true. • Alleged to be stated by Protagoras, “Man is the measure of all things: things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not.” ~ Plato's Theaetetus, section 152a. Protagoras, a Pre-Socratic Philosopher (490BC-420 BC)

Against Relativism: • Truth is objective (not subjective and relative); • Truth is absolute (not conditional); • Truth is immutable (not changeable); • Truth is universally transcendent (always a everywhere the same for all people no matter time, space, gender, sexuality, worldview, religion, or political position).

Pragmatism: • Truth consist in those ideas or thought which bear practical fruit in action; • Truth is that which consists in the things which work; • Truth is what works in our thinking; • An idea’s working successfully is a sign of its truth; • Emphasis on action and practical results as the measure of truth. William James (1842-1910) John Dewey (1859-1952)

Consider the following: • Is there a direct or even an indirect way of asking reality questions to find out whether what you think agrees with what reality thinks? • Well you can ask reality the question, but reality doesn’t speak back. So, the problem is telling whether what I think is true is really true?

Let’s consider five models of reality as it relates to biblical interpretation: 1. Representational Model. 2. Functional Agnostic Model. 3. Postconservative Relational Model. 4. Direct Realist Model. 5. Direct Realist Moderate Thomist Model.

REPRESENTATIONAL GAP: The thing in mind is a copy of thing as it is in itself. Comparison The Object itself The Idea G A P Sense Perception The gap is what is between us & reality; we are trapped by our ideas, concepts, & images. Indubitability: When our own ideas are absolutely clear & distinct, free from all contradiction, then we are certain we possess the truth. The idea of the Bible is the representation. There is no way to determine accuracy of the idea since the Bible is outside the mind and the idea is in the mind. The bible is always “out there” and our representation is always “in here.” The two can never be brought along side another for the purpose of the comparison for there a gap between the interpreter and reality.

Consider the following statements by Rene Descartes: “Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” (VII.18). ~ Descartes.

Consider the following statements by Rene Descartes: “So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown as a result of yesterday’s meditation that I can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top. Nevertheless… I will proceed… until I recognize something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least recognize for certain that there is no certainty. Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakeable (VII:24).”

Descartes' Belief -Set: Beliefs which can be doubted Believe only that which can’t be doubted I think, therefore I exist. I think, i.e., I doubt, will, imagine, perceive, etc. Intellect priority the true nature of bodies, if they exist is perceived by the intellect, not the senses. Mind priority: (knowledge of the mind is more easily acquired than knowledge of the bodies) God exists God is not a deceiver Clearly & distinctly perceived propositions are true, etc. A good God exists All propositions of … Sensor Experience I have a body I have a vapory soul Physics Astronomy Medicine Arithmetic Geometry

FUNCTIONAL AGNOSTIC GAP: We inherently contaminate reality because of our human limitations; all interpretations are provisional though legitimate meaning and doctrinal truths are held with absolute conviction. Approximation Prejudice Reality & Revelation G A P Holistic (community) Perception The gap is what is between us & reality; we are trapped by our perspectivalism. We can only approximate towards biblical meaning by means of qualitative dialogue within the community of God. There is no way to truly discover the Author/author’s intended meaning because we inherently contaminate the intended meaning with our biases (fixed presuppositions that don’t change unless placed under extreme duress), preunderstandings (moldable influences), & noetic effects of sin. Thus, our limitations produces a gap between the interpreter & reality. All interpretations are provisional because the starting point for interpretation is our human limitations.

Consider the following: As a result of everyone having these conditions, generated from both within and from our subculture of beliefs, customs, and, practices, some people have argued that we are to be people of humility because all interpretations of Scripture are provisional. Nevertheless, this human limitation shouldn’t stop us from seeking to know the Scripture, because it fosters the opportunity to engage in fruitful dialogue within the community of God. Consider the following quotes from Darrell Bock in his work, co-authored with Craig Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism:

Consider the following: “Now in determining meaning there can be both accuracy and perception” [Ibid., 82]. Then Bock later states: However, some degree of distortion of meaning is inevitable in the interpretation of ancient texts. We cannot ask those human writers what was meant. In fact, often a writer is not aware of all the factors that contribute to the writing and choice of terms. These factors mean there is a provisional character to all interpretation no matter how careful we are [Ibid., 83].”

Consider the following: Now many people would say that this prism is merely a matter of ‘presuppositions.’ If one has good presuppositions, they will stand nearer to truth than one who has bad presuppositions. But worldviews are not so simple. They are the result of both presuppositions and what we might call preunderstandings [Ibid., 59]. Bock & Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 59.

Consider the following: “Both our limitations and our grid [our way of seeing] are combined to form a prism through which we interpret reality and through which we read our texts. As good as the text is that which we read, it always comes to us through the prism we construct of reality.” Bock & Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 59.

Consider the following: Since each person is different, various worldviews exist. In fact, Bock writes, “They influence perspective and impact interpretation; they also can create differences in reading. But if their role is appreciated, they can become the subject of fruitful discussions, even where disagreements exist” [Ibid., 61].

Consider the following: Through interaction as a community, with everyone bearing a different perspective or angle, Bock states that believers can have hope in developing “sensitive conviction about the truth. But we must always have an awareness of our limitations in understanding that truth, so that we have a sense of the level of the conviction and clarity with which we perceive a particular truth” [Ibid., 75].

POSTCONSERVATIVE RELATIONAL VIEW OF REALITY: Experience is the enduring essence of Christianity: Transactional Experience God speaks to us through His Word We are participants in culture, relational and experiential. Relatively inclusive; they have a ‘commitment to ongoing reform or re-casting of evangelical life, worship and belief in the light of God’s word in view of the various dynamics of culture & personal experience. Though meaning has a preexisting history, all interpretation are developmental, changeable, and contingent expressions of belief that vary from one community to another. The subject/object distinction of reality was a Western construct. We are situated beings; qualitative dialogue and perspectivalism are emphasized.

Postconservatives Emphasize the following: • Justin Taylor offers a helpful summary of Roger Olson’s list of the characteristics of postconservative evangelical theology and its proponents: (1) They are thoroughly and authentically evangelical; (2) They embrace a vision of critical and generous orthodoxy; (3) They believe in experience rather than doctrine as the ongoing essence of evangelical Christianity; (4) They express discomfort for foundationalism, metaphysics, and dogmatic doctrinal positions of belief.

Postconservatives Emphasize the following: (5) They have a strong interest in qualitative dialogue; (6) They have a broad and relatively inclusive vision of evangelicalism; (7) They have a relational view of reality; (8) They tend to have an inclusivist attitude toward salvation. (9) Their major unifying motif is a ‘commitment to ongoing reform of evangelical life, worship and belief in the light of God’s Word.

Common to previous three models: The starting point of interpretation is the readers’ human limitations. The preconditions (lenses) by which they perceive all things impacts their understanding of the meaning of the texts or Text.

Consider the following quote: “The honest, active interpreter remains open to change, even to a significant transformation of preunderstanding. This is the hermeneutical spiral. Since we accept the Bible’s authority, we remain open to correction by its message. There are ways to verify interpretations, or at least, to validate some interpretative options as more likely than others. It is not a matter of simply throwing the dice. There is a wide variety of methods available to help us find what the original texts most likely meant to their initial readers. Every time we alter our preunderstandings as the result of our interactions with the text we demonstrate that the process has objective constraints, otherwise, no change would occur; we would remain forever entombed in our prior commitments.” ~ Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993). 115.

Common to previous three models:Mutable framework of preconditions: One potential solution to the problem with our prejudices, is that the Scripture will work in changing the interpreter’s framework of beliefs. Is there a serious problem (s) with this view?

Critique: • If all aspects of our preconditions are mutable, then there are no immutable presuppositions or beliefs that provide the foundation upon which to verify a truth claim. • They are left with preconditional circularity.

Critique: • While they acknowledge a prior commitment to the authority of the Bible, whereby the Bible is a non-negotiable fact, they also argue that all interpretations are provisional because of our human limitations. • They are logically inconsistent.

Critique: We have three other reasons why we can reject representational model, functional agnostic model, and the postconservative relational model: 1. We have no reason to believe that these theories are true (they are self-defeating); 2. They do not help us to understand the operations of the mind any better (e.g., does not explain the process of perception; And with regard to memory and imagination, it introduces confusion); 3 Leads to skepticism, solipsism, and even nihilism.

DIRECT REALISM: Mind-and-language independent world. DIRECT AWARENESS: SELF-EVIDENT The Idea The Object itself Our foundational beliefs rest upon direct access to the real world & objective truth We see a thing for what it is; we have the capacity to recognize & categorize. From many observations we develop a concept of what that thing is. We learn to associate a term with our awareness of the object by use of senses. The object is indeed that kind of thing. We look to confirm what we had already seen. We each can compare the object that is given in our experience with our concept (thought) of that object to determine if they correspond. Thus, we must pay very close attention to what is present before our minds in experience. There is no need to have indubitability to accurately identify or know something.

3 Kinds of Knowledge: Object X • Simple Seeing: Knowledge by acquaintance. Thus, I have a direct awareness of object X: • It is not limited to sense perception; we have conscience as well (e.g., natural, moral law). • Simple seeing comes before the formulation of a concept. • Seeing as: the formulation of a mental judgment. For example, seeing “red” on an apple formulates a concept of redness. • Seeing that: We have reasons for our belief; it is justified true belief (eg., we are able to pick out a red apple from among other colored apples).

Apple, anyone? • We saw object X as it is; • We learned to associate the apple’s picture with the word “apple”; • We developed a concept of what a red apple is from many observations; • We can go into the grocery store’s produce section and be able to pick out a red apple from among other kinds of apples.

Consider the following: • In the JETS article, “Post-Conservatives, Foundationalism, and Theological Truth: A Critical Evaluation” (June 2005) R. Scott Smith argues the following: 1. Foundationalism or basic beliefs do not require indubitability or invincible certainty in order for a truth claim to be justified (.e.g, we exist; Jesus is the only way to God). 2. If we have ample reasons or evidence for our belief, than the burden of proof is upon the person who challenges us. He contends that we can, and often do.

Consider the following: By way of illustration R. Scott Smith states: Allison can know that her light is on even though this knowledge is not completely certain: The proposition Allison takes herself to know that the light is on, but in fact it is not self-self-contradictory. However, Allison’s knowledge that the light is on does not require that this proposition be self-contradictory. Thus one can have knowledge even though it is logically possible that one is mistaken. In fact, we sometimes contrast knowing something with know it with certainty, implying that there is a contrast between knowing with certainty and simply knowing. Thus simple knowing is till knowing even if it is not certain [Ibid., 363].

Consider the following: He goes on to say: But how do we know this? This leads to a crucial point: we each can compare the object that is given in our experience with our concept of that object, to see if they match up. That is, I can compare my thought of something to that thing as it is given in my experience. I can see if they are the same or different, and can see if my thought of that thing does (or does not do) anything to modify it. This is where I think we must pay every close attention to what is present before our minds in experience, for we can compare our concepts with things in the world, and we can see that they are different, and that my thought (or, awareness, or language use) does not modify its object.

Consider the following: Lastly, R. Scott Smith claims: As [Dallas] Willard argues, even those who deny such access to the real world do this all the time, yet they additionally hold that in thinking, seeing, or mentally acting upon some object, we modify it, such that we cannot get to the real thing in itself. But this is nonsense, as that very ability to access the real, objective world is presupposed in that denial [Ibid., 361].

MODERATE THOMIST MODEL: Mind-and-language independent world grounded in the nature of reality which God created. DIRECT AWARENESS: SELF-EVIDENT The Idea The Object itself Direct access to the real world & objective truth observable through the senses • 1. The world is able to enter the mind by virtue of the forms that constitute the things in the world as the kinds of things they actually are. • Objectivity is possible because of the direct connection that the mind has with the world, and the fact that any truth claim is subject to analysis in terms of first principles of logic (e.g., law of non-contradiction). • Self-evident undeniable first principles of thought and being constitute a foundation upon which objectivity is based. • There is an undeniable and unavoidable reality and all truth claims are reducible to first principles, not deducible from first principles. These first principles are discoverable & universal because of the nature of reality. While they don’t deny we have preconditions, first principles of logic are transcendental because they transcend every perspective & are the same for all people, all times, & in all cultures.

Consider the following: • Norman Geisler argues for validity in interpretation by claiming that all textual meaning is in the text itself. Geisler states, “The objective meaning of a text is the one given to it by the author, not the one attributed to it by the reader” [Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1:173]. • He goes on to say, “The meaning is not found beyond the text (in God’s mind), beneath the text (in the mystic’s mind), or behind the text (in the author’s unexpressed intention); it is found in the text (in the author’s expressed meaning). For instance, the beauty of a sculpture is not found behind, beneath, or beyond the sculpture. Rather it is expressed in the sculpture” [Ibid., 1:174]. • The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text (by which).

Geisler applies Aristotle’s six causes of meaning to the issue of objectivity: • The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text (by which). • The writer’s purpose is the final cause of its meaning (for which). • The writing is the formal cause of its meaning (of which). • The words are the material cause of its meaning (out of which). • The writer’s ideas are the exemplar cause of its meaning (after which). • The laws of thought are the instrumental cause of its meaning (through which).

Bibliography: • Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Ill.: Victor Books, 1993). • Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002). • Thomas Howe, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (Advantage Books, 2004). • William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993). • Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1950). • R. Scott Smith,” Post-Conservatives, Foundationalism, and Theological Truth: A Critical Evaluation” JETS 48/2 (June 2005) 351-63. • Justin Taylor, “An Introduction to Postconservative Evangelicalism and the Rest of This Book,” in Reclaiming the Center, 20 cf. Roger Olson, “Postconservative Evangelical Theology and the Theological Pilgrimage of Clark Pinnock,” in Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock, edStanley Porter and Anthony R. Cross (Carlisle, England: Paternoster, 2003), 36. • Catherine Wilson, Descartes’s Meditations (Cambridge: University Press, 2003).

Prolegomena: Reality, Language, & Interpretation