K wrote: although I'm not sure I'd be ready to dismiss reason so quickly as an actual source given that it seems to me that logical reasoning does lead to new knowledge.
I totally agree that reason leads to new knowledge. Let's take the idea of the Trinity. It isn't specifically formulated in the Bible, but logically there is no way to avoid it if we accept Scripture as authoritative. So, would I say, then, that the source of doctrine for the Trinity was Scriptural or Reason? I'd say the
source is the Scriptures, but it was organized by reason. In other words, our ability to reason led us, not necessarily to "new" knowledge, but the discovery of an implicit knowledge found somewhere already . . .
K wrote:Reason is a source in the sense that it acknowledges, structures and makes sense of data and in doing so I think it becomes a source of knowledge itself.
Ultimately, I agree with you here, but I think if you try to separate it you get into the problem (well, it's not really a PROBLEM) that we are now . . . you can't say what the source of doctrine is. By separating reason into its own category rather than simply a tool for assessing the information found in other places, you create an interesting situation in which everything becomes completely interdependent. Ultimately, I think this is the case, but I also think that on a more basic level, the various
sources of information can and should be separated from our ability to process it.
To use an analogy, consider a gold mining company. The source of the gold is may be a mine and a river bed. The tools the company uses to gather the gold would correspond to what we call "observation," and the tools they use to purify it into high quality gold would be what we call "reason." No new gold is found by these purification (systematizing) tools, but the value of the purified gold is much higher. You could then mold the gold into, say, a ring. Of course, the ring wasn't in the river bed, but it was drawn out of the ore. I'd say the same goes with doctrine. The doctrine itself isn't in the Bible or the Church or Natural Theology or Experience or anything like that. All that is in the Bible are words. All that is in the Church are people. All that is in Natural Theology are stars, dust, plants, animals, and natural laws. And all that is in Experience are chemical reactions. It is when we apply our selves--our ability to interpret those words, sayings, implications of observations, and/or experiences--when we put this raw material through the system of reason that we can get formal doctrines.
Thus, my question: where do you get the source for the material? I personally get my material from the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scripture), BUT, I absolutely DO let the other three influence my reasoning. Again, that's why I separate them. If the Church has uniformly agreed on an interpretation sense the day of Jesus Christ Himself, chances are that I'll interpret that passage of Scripture the same way. If scientific observation tells me a certain thing, I'll incorporate that into my world view and read the Bible from that position, but my SOURCE of doctrine is the Bible and the Bible alone. I know that some people get doctrines from the Church (councils, popes, etc.). Some people get it from experience (very, very extreme protestants and fringe cults, I think
). So, for someone in the second category, if the Church says something contrary to the Scriptures, then the Church is right as it is the source of doctrine. If someone in the third category experiences something contrary to Scripture and the Church, then both are wrong. If someone in the first category reads something contrary to Church dogma and/or their personal experiences, they reject those as being false.
That's all I was getting at, really.
K wrote:For example, think of there being no sentient beings in the world... Would it really make sense to then say that in such a world anything was a source of knowledge?
I can see what you are saying here, but again, I come back to the basic argument I had first: what "new" knowledge does reason come up with? If you never fed your mind anything at all to work with, how could you come up with any doctrines or ideas? Of course, without reason, you could fill up your head with all kinds of sense-perceptions and you'd never have any doctrines or ideas either--just instinct, I suppose. That, again, is why I separate them into a two step process. First information-gathering (from various sources) then information processing (reason).
K wrote:I'd say you're giving these senses too much credit, as the most we can have is that we "think" they're true because so seem so real. If you've watched the movie A Beautiful Mind it would perhaps help exemplify my point here better. It reveals so clearly how we can be wrong about something we experience as so real. And so my point would be that we need faith in our experiences, no matter where they come from, in order to believe anything. Truth is objective, but I see that our beliefs on what is real will always be tainted by uncertainty whether we acknowledge it or not. And this is where "faith" can help us jump the gap of uncertainty when it makes sense for us to do so.
Eh, I give the senses the credit that they tell us something about the real world, and apart from them, I couldn't know anything. The senses are the ways by which I experience whatever is out there. Here's the way I see it: if they are lying to me, I could never know that anyway, unless my sense-perceptions starting contradicting one another. But, then I'd have to assume that at least one of them actually was right, or that both are wrong. If both are wrong, then I can't even be sure that the world exists at all, and if that's the case, then there are absolutely no sources of knowledge at all, not even reason itself
. At this point, we certainly do need a bit of faith . . .
I just hold reason on a lower level. In my mind, it is purely a tool--nothing more and nothing less. It evaluates and systematizes perception and revelation.
K wrote: But then I can't help but see some categories as tied in with others in some way... so I think I got confused a little as to what you were meaning...
Well, again, I do agree that all the sources, in the sense that you are talking about them, are interdependent. We have just been taking a different slant on how those sources are handled--I've been picturing it as a very two-step process, where as you've been taking a big picture approach, it seems to me.
K wrote:I'd perhaps define observation as coming in under the experience+reason duo. I think natural theology though would definitely be a source in a similar manner to Scripture and tradition.
Yeah, I really should add it to the list. I just wanted to avoid getting into general revelation vs. special revelation. I consider natural theology the former, and doctrine the latter, but I'll have to think that through more.
K wrote:If Scripture is authoritative, then ones experiences in life, influenced by previous Christian tradition and reasoning affects how they will understand Scripture. Perhaps "church" would not necessarily be dependant, but then I had tradition on a broader level in mind (as you noticed below), rather than an organised Christian governing body which should pay attention the Christian sources of theology without perhaps being dependant on them.
Agreed, BUT--notice that the authority comes from the Scriptures. How you interpret them comes from your experiences and background, but again, the authority, in this case, is still Scripture. There are those, such as Catholics, who put Tradition (in their sense of the word) on a greater or equal footing with Scripture. For them, how they read that would affect how they interpret Tradition, and the authority would come from there.
K wrote:I'm starting to realise that I hijacked what you meant at the beginning by "ecclesiology" and took things on a tangent. Not that I regret it too much as I've never really have anyone who I could discuss these things with, and it helps to evolve my own thoughts having to consider your own words.
Haha, 'tis all good. The whole thing was sort of off the top of my head anyway, so the critique, on a tangent or not, is still good.
Anyway, I think line-by-lining the rest would end up having me just repeat myself on different issues. I get what you mean, and agree, that each source of knowledge has some influence over the others. I especially agree with Tradition->Scripture if we limit Tradition to the pre-gospel Apostolic Traditions. But, I think we need to be careful to differentiate between the affects these have on the various sources and our interpretation of them.
That, of course, begs the question--if all sources are subject to interpretation, how do you know if you have properly understood the source itself?!? I guess that's where the actual sciences of theology come in. No one said that part was easy
K wrote:I wanted to actually write more on this distinction, but my word limit was capped and I was having a hard time compressing it down . If I ever revise my writing though and have time, I'll definitely add this distinction as it is an important one to make.
At least it forces you to be concise, something I still need to learn
. You really should flesh that out, though. Lot's of good stuff in there.
God bless
. If I ever revise my writing though and have time, I'll definitely add this distinction as it is an important one to make.