liberale
08-23-2005, 06:17 AM
Good read. Thank you, Daniel.
A preliminary response.
The kernel passage:
“The important point which I want to stress, and which the Enlightenment missed, is that metaphysical objectivity is perfectly compatible with epistemological subjectivity. I can passionately believe in a certain objective reality without at all violating either my intellectual integrity or the universality of truth." (p6)
My view:
If you don’t know whether an “objective reality” exists or not, the intellectually sound way is to admit “I don’t know” but not making the jump “I believe it exists.” “I don’t know” is 100% true; “I believe it exists” renders this belief having a certain probability of being false. So choosing the latter over the former violates intellectual integrity. The Enlightenment’s choice of the former over the latter (until epistemological objectivity is satisfied) is intellectually more robust.
In general:
The writer has committed a detrimental omission: he has not attempted to convince the reader why Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Taoism or else, has been chosen to bring back focus, universality, and unity to today's understanding of truth. One can well say that all truth is Allah's truth.
Latter half of the chapter is being occupied by a regurgitation of the already widely-known traditional Christian understanding of God, the Bible, and Jesus, which will fail to speak to the non-believing public reader.
A preliminary response.
The kernel passage:
“The important point which I want to stress, and which the Enlightenment missed, is that metaphysical objectivity is perfectly compatible with epistemological subjectivity. I can passionately believe in a certain objective reality without at all violating either my intellectual integrity or the universality of truth." (p6)
My view:
If you don’t know whether an “objective reality” exists or not, the intellectually sound way is to admit “I don’t know” but not making the jump “I believe it exists.” “I don’t know” is 100% true; “I believe it exists” renders this belief having a certain probability of being false. So choosing the latter over the former violates intellectual integrity. The Enlightenment’s choice of the former over the latter (until epistemological objectivity is satisfied) is intellectually more robust.
In general:
The writer has committed a detrimental omission: he has not attempted to convince the reader why Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Taoism or else, has been chosen to bring back focus, universality, and unity to today's understanding of truth. One can well say that all truth is Allah's truth.
Latter half of the chapter is being occupied by a regurgitation of the already widely-known traditional Christian understanding of God, the Bible, and Jesus, which will fail to speak to the non-believing public reader.