Fi- nally, they do not know in the same way that God does they are existentially limited. In addition, they do not serve as the ultimate standard they are normatively limited. ![]() Human beings can know truth (accord- ing to the principle of God’s immanence), but they do not know everything they are situationally limited. God’s knowledge must be distinguished from human knowledge. Theft is wrong because it is wrong in God’s mind, according to God’s moral judgment. How can a non-Christian know the correspondence itself, or even talk about it, without leaping out of his skin and pretend- ing to have a transcendent, godlike viewpoint? Moreover, since the fact in question (for example, the fact that theft is wrong) is treated as independent of God, it is completely impersonal, and one cannot know that it actually has the character that would allow it to be digested by a person.īy contrast, in a Christian version of the correspondence theory, what is true for human beings corresponds to what is true accord- ing to the mind of God, and God’s knowledge is the standard for truth. But this version leads to a difficulty, because no human being is able to achieve a transcendent view- point, a viewpoint encompassing (1) himself and his statement, (2) the reality of the fact, and (3) the correspondence between (1) and (2). According to this version, theft is wrong because it is actually wrong “out there.” The state of affairs is treated as if it were “brute fact” or self-sufficient fact, instead of being dependent on the mind and plan of God. In a non-Christian version, truth corresponds to a state of affairs in the world, in virtual indepen- dence of God. He is “distant” and uninvolved (which is the non-Christian view of transcendence).įrom a Christian point of view, we should say that there are two forms of correspondence theory. The theories are in danger of assuming a non-Christian view of transcendence as well, since the formulations of the theories leave God out. Allegedly, theft is wrong merely because “reality” as experienced by human beings in some fashion is that way, or because human beings find that it works, or because it fits other human beliefs. ![]() All three theories essentially assume a non-Christian view of epistemological im- manence by implying that humanity, and not God, functions as the sole reference point for discussing truth. And that is a major failure, typical of philosophical reasoning ori- ented to an autonomous conception of reason. In evaluating these theories, we may note first that, in their usual form, they fail to distinguish between God and creatures. Theft is wrong because it fits in with a larger system of moral beliefs, including general principles (such as “do to oth- ers as you would have them do to you”), practical benefits (it helps social well-being), and movements of conscience. They realize that a particular belief could lead to a series of short-range successes and still fail later on.įinally, according to the coherence theory, a statement is true if it “coheres with” and is consistent with the other beliefs that a person holds. Pragmatists usually say that success must be long-run suc- cess. ![]() According to this theory, believing that theft is wrong has good results (in restraining thievery and in giving people grounds for punishing thieves). Next, according to the pragmatic theory, a statement is true if it “works,” that is, if it leads consistently to good results in practice for those who hold it to be true. According to the correspondence theory, a statement is true “if it corresponds to the way things really are.”6 For example, it is true that theft is wrong only because theft is actually wrong. The main theories about truth are the correspondence theory, the pragmatic theory, and the coherence theory of truth.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |