Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11
Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.
Rog
7th March 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment