DOCSLIB.ORG

Revelation As Divine Testimony: a Philosophical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revelation As Divine Testimony: a Philosophical REVELATION AS DIVINE TESTIMONY: A PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY by MATS ANDERS WAHLBERG Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Theology (DTh) in the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University Promotor: Prof. D. J. Smit Co-Promotor: Dr. Gerrit Brand April 2014 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Mats Wahlberg December 2013 Copyright © 2014 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract The dissertation examines, on the basis of insights from contemporary analytic philosophy of testimony, the intellectual viability of the traditional Christian conception of revelation as divine testimony. This conception entails that God reveals by speaking, and that people can acquire knowledge of God and divine things by believing what God says. In academic theology of recent decades, this view is often dismissed – under the label of “propositional revelation” – as authoritarian and intellectually problematic. Recent developments within the analytic philosophy of testimony, however, provide grounds for a re-evaluation. The dissertation has two purposes. One is to clarify the concept of propositional revelation and to examine what the consequences are, for Christian theology, of rejecting this idea. The second purpose is to investigate whether there is a way of explicating the divine testimony- model of revelation (traditionally the most prominent version of propositional revelation) so as to render it intellectually credible today. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and describes the dissertation’s purposes, methods and sources. Chapters 2 and 3 address the first purpose by distinguishing, following Nicholas Wolterstorff, between manifestational and propositional conceptions of revelation, and by arguing that unless theologians posit some form of propositional revelation (e.g. revelation as divine testimony), theology will be threatened by incoherence. On the basis of a survey of a number of manifestational theories of revelation, selected from different categories in Avery Dulles’s classificatory scheme, the author argues that manifestational theories in general suffer from certain systematic limitations and therefore provide an insufficient basis for theology. This means that theologians have strong reason to take a second look at the idea of revelation as divine testimony. To evaluate this model is the second and main purpose of the dissertation, and it is addressed by the method of hypothesis construction and testing. In the present context, this means to construct a version of the divine testimony-model with the help of the best philosophical and theological tools available, and to examine whether internal coherence and coherence with established knowledge can be achieved. In chapters 4 and 5, the author describes the philosophical tools that will be used, viz. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s analysis of the idea of divine speech, and insights from recent analytic philosophy of testimony, especially John McDowell’s anti-reductionist theory of testimonial knowledge. In chapters 6-8, the divine testimony-model is elaborated using these tools and tested for internal coherence, coherence 2 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za with external knowledge such as contemporary biblical scholarship, and coherence with traditional views of the nature of Christian faith. The model’s ability to withstand philosophical objections of various kinds is also scrutinized. The tentative conclusion of the dissertation is that the model is intellectually viable in light of current knowledge, but that further testing in the context of a wider scholarly debate is needed. 3 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za For Marta 4 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgments I was fortunate to have two great advisors for this dissertation, Dr. Gerrit Brand and Prof. Dirkie Smit. I met both of them in Umeå, Sweden, in the context of a teacher-exchange program between the Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies at Umeå University, and the Faculty of Theology in Stellenbosch. Gerrit came up with the idea that I should take a second doctorate in Stellenbosch, as a way of strengthening the relations between our departments. Sadly, before the dissertation was completed, Gerrit passed away. I am very grateful for the privilege of knowing him, and for all that he has done to bring this project forward. I am also extremely grateful that Dirkie was willing to step in as advisor in this difficult situation. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with him, and many problems, sometimes of a practical nature, have been overcome thanks to his generous efforts. It was also a great pleasure to experience the hospitality of all the people at the Faculty of Theology, not least that of its Dean, Prof. Nico Koopman. I would like to thank Prof. Arne Rasmusson, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, for his invaluable help during the process of writing. Prof. John Haldane, University of St Andrews, read the manuscript at an early stage and chaired a seminar in Umeå where it was discussed. This was very fruitful. Many others deserve special thanks, such as Carl-Magnus Carlstein, Leif Svensson, and the participants of the theology seminar at Umeå University. I benefited greatly from discussing two chapters of the dissertation at the higher seminar for theology and philosophy at the Newman Institute for Catholic Studies in Uppsala, Sweden. I am indebted to all the participants of this seminar, and especially to Prof. Ulf Jonsson, Prof. Gösta Hallonsten, and Dr. Philip Geister. A reworked book-version of the dissertation is to be published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company under the title Revelation as Testimony. Many thanks to the people at Eerdmans, and to Prof. Nicholas Wolterstorff, who was happy to disclose his identity as a reviewer, and who gave me important encouragement toward the end of the process. The University of Stellenbosch has been very accommodating in solving practical problems related to the publication of the book, and for this I am grateful. Finally, I want to thank my mother Lena and all my sisters and brothers – Maria, Margareta, Åke Jr, and Jan, with families – and my friend Marta, for their support and love. M. W. 5 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Purposes, Methods and Sources ........................................................................... 19 1.2 Earlier Research ................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 2 Revelation and Knowledge of God ............................................................ 29 2.1 Revelation, Propositions, and Personal Relations ................................................ 34 2.1.1 Propositional and Manifestational Revelation .............................................. 37 2.1.2 Misconceptions about Propositional Revelation .......................................... 41 2.1.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 50 2.2 The Problem of Knowledge of God ..................................................................... 50 2.2.1 Kaufman’s Challenge ................................................................................... 51 2.2.2 A Response to Kaufman’s Challenge ........................................................... 55 Chapter 3 Theories of Revelation ................................................................................ 60 3.1 Revelation as History ........................................................................................... 60 3.2 Revelation as Inner Experience: Non-Conceptual Experience ............................ 67 3.2.1 Friedrich Schleiermacher .............................................................................. 67 3.2.2 Karl Rahner .................................................................................................. 71 3.3 Revelation as Inner Experience: Conceptual Experience ................................... 79 3.4. Revelation as Dialectical Presence ...................................................................... 87 3.4.1 Emil Brunner ................................................................................................ 89 3.4.2 Karl Barth ..................................................................................................... 91 3.5 Revelation as New Awareness ............................................................................. 97 3.6 “Post-Liberal” Views of Revelation ..................................................................... 99 3.6.1 Ronald Thiemann ....................................................................................... 100 3.6.2 John Milbank .............................................................................................. 104 6 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 3.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 108 Chapter 4 Divine Speech
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2015 Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science Kamili Posey Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1097 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE PROJECT OF MAPPING SCIENCE BY KAMILI POSEY A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York. 2015 © 2015 KAMILI POSEY All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Nikolas Pappas ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Executive Officer Samir Chopra ______________________________________________ Linda Alcoff ______________________________________________ Robert Sinclair ______________________________________________ Supervisory Committee THE
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony, Belief and Unbelief in the Problem of Faith and Reason
    Testimony, Belief and Unbelief in the Problem of Faith and Reason A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Finlay P Malcolm School of Social Sciences 2 CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 6 Declaration and Copyright Statement .......................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 8 0. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 9 0.1 Situating the Project ...................................................................................... 9 0.2 Chapter Overviews ...................................................................................... 13 1. NEW DIRECTIONS IN FAITH AND REASON ......................................... 15 1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 15 1.2 The Problem of Faith and Reason ............................................................... 16 1.2.1 Belief .................................................................................................... 16 1.2.2 Evaluating Faith & Belief .................................................................... 19 1.3 Epistemic Justification ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Philosophy, Vol.12(1), 2020 Truth of a Knows That P
    JUSTIFICATION IN THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCEPTION OF TRUST Benedict Michael, PhD & Edoh Sunday Odum Abstract The concept of trust is not new in philosophy; it has been used in different times and epoch, first as transactional virtue in The Republic of Plato and multilateral virtue in Aristotle's Habituation Ethics as essential commodity in the formulation of friendship as brotherhood. In John Dewey's Democracy and Education, trust is the value that individuals posses for social cooperation and mutual dialogue for the growth and development of any society, while Francis Fukuyama consider trust as aspect of social capital necessary for both economic and political growth and development. In essence the extant theorist, have examined trust from the dimensions of political, economic, culture, moral and social dimensions. In this study, we shall examine the epistemological notion of trust. Traditionally, epistemology is based on genuine knowledge beliefs (Justified Truth Belief) acquired by trusting others either by rational belief as argued by the rationalist or sense impressions as held by the empiricist. Only a small aspect of our knowledge is generated from our personal experience. Relaying on what others say is one of the fundamental ways to acquire knowledge, not only about the external world, but also about who we are, for instance about when and where we were born. Epistemic trust is the examination of first the authority, source and the pragmaticality of our knowledge claims, content of our communication in the process of justifying our knowledge. Key words: Philosophy, Epistemology, Trust, Justification, Traditional Epistemology, INTRODUCTION Epistemology is one of the major branches in philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • SIAS Proposal Final
    James Conant (University of Chicago) Sebastian Rödl (Universität Basel) Proposal for an SIAS Summer Institute: 2011/2012 The Second Person: Comparative Perspectives I. Overview of the Aim of the Seminar Our summer seminar proposes to examine the concept of the second person. On the one hand, this concept has recently moved into the center of research in a number of distinct fields, though not necessarily under this description. On the other hand, researchers within each of these fields are largely unconscious of the parallel developments within the other fields. This is in no small part due to the fact that the level at which our topic is conceptualized, and thus the terminology employed to designate it, varies tremendously from one field to the next, ranging over topics apparently as diverse as “joint intention”, “bi-polar relations”, “trust”, “authority”, “recognition”, and “acknowledgment”, to mention just a few of the relevant candi- dates. The primary aim of the seminar is to do justice to the particularities of the phemonena appearing in these different guises, while at the same time to reveal a common problematic, thus uncovering the ubi- quity of a certain conceptual structure. Our method will be to examine the topic of the second person comparatively – that is, across a variety of contexts of disciplinary inquiry – with a special focus on the following five disciplines, which have thus far explored its significance in relative isolation from one another: (1) practical philosophy, (2) theoretical philosophy, (3) jurisprudence, (4) primatology, and (5) theology. We will also be concerned to explore the historical evolution of thought about this topic across all of these disciplines in both the Anglo- American and German intellectual traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth Is Expendable: Foundations for an Empirically Informed Philosophy of Testimony
    TRUTH IS EXPENDABLE: FOUNDATIONS FOR AN EMPIRICALLY INFORMED PHILOSOPHY OF TESTIMONY by Michael Wayne Hermon A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy The University of Utah August 2011 Copyright © Michael Wayne Hermon 2011 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Michael Wayne Hermon has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Mariam Thalos , Chair 9 June 2011 Date Approved Stephen Downes , Member 12 June 2011 Date Approved Ronald Mallon , Member 9 June 2011 Date Approved Clifton McIntosh , Member 9 June 2011 Date Approved Richard Fowles , Member 9 June 2011 Date Approved and by Stephen Downes , Chair of the Department of Philosophy and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT The goal of this dissertation is to offer an empirically informed evaluation of testimony as a source of knowledge. Epistemologists have assumed that testimony is a generally reliable source of true beliefs because human cognitive faculties would have evolved to be reliable at getting the truth. However, complementary evidence from the signaling theory and social psychology literature shows that testimony is a practical tool with a variety of nonepistemic functions, including forming and maintaining social relationships, coordinating group behavior, and prescribing conduct. Since the value of using testimony is very often independent of its accuracy, humans have evolved to expend as little resources on checking for accuracy as is necessary to satisfy their other needs. In other words, “truth is expendable” to humans trying to get along well in the world and with each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue Epistemology: Some Implications for Education
    Virtue Epistemology: Some implications for Education Sean Moran, BEd, BA, DPSE, MA Thesis Presented for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy Dublin City University, St Patrick's College, Drumcondra Education Department Supervisor: Prof. Joseph Dunne June 2011 l Declaration Ï hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme o f study leading to the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text o f my work. Signed: ID No.: 58262903 Date: 28 June 2011 Acknowledgements Thanks are due to my supervisor, Prof. Joseph Dunne, for his guidance, sungnome and courteous elenchus; to Dr. Eileen Brennan and Dr. Christopher Cowley for reading and commenting on earlier versions of chapters 1 and 2; to the internal and external examiners, Dr. Jones Irwin and Prof. David Carr, for an interesting viva and some useful suggestions; to my colleague Ms. Mary Fenton for her support; and to my beloved S. 3 Table of Contents A b s t r a c t ........ 8 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 1 - Overview of Virtue Epistem ology ......................................................................2 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................2 1 Traditional
    [Show full text]
  • Definition of Testimony in Philosophy
    Definition Of Testimony In Philosophy Sharp-witted and vermivorous Dominic nettling compliantly and pal his hanaps charily and off-key. If Ruthenian or dioecious Titos usually self-proclaimedsurges his masquerades Saw distillings boycott so ashorepaltrily? or overdraws nuttily and mighty, how octadic is Tamas? Is Skell nodulated or glyphographic after THE hospital OF TESTIMONY. In his prior Testimony a philosophical study CAJ Coady proposes a natural definition of pool by weakening the conditions of loss legal and quasi testimony. Intuition Britannica. One would gain knowledge entail belief from somebody's testimony and said. Libraries & Philosophy Sense & Reference. Defending the contribute of Scripture Testimony as seed Source of. Abstract Some recent accounts of testimonial warrant base it on trust will claim that letter so helps. Disagreement Knowledge Perception Pragmatism Skepticism Testimony Truth. If the role of testimony with knowledge is also vast why burn its role in construction history of. However philosophers have begun to throw the idea otherwise the epistemic. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Section X. Of immediate large space of explaining linguistic meaning the significance of words. In recent years amongst philosophers in the issues in epistemology raised by. Who hate so-called identification decisions as defined in Section Key. Prejudiced person have I have defined such new person takes their cues from a prejudiced. Miracles Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Testimonial Injustice Contemporary Epistemology Wiley. Philosophy of Race Rowman & Littlefield. First major judicial dimension which followswell-defined rules and grace help. Philosophy of testimony Wikipedia. What are sources of knowledge via research FindAnyAnswercom. Cognition and trick in Hume's Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • 20160614 Corrections
    A THERAPEUTIC ELIMINATION OF “BELIEF” AND “DESIRE” FROM CAUSAL ACCOUNTS OF ACTION Mark Curtis University of East Anglia School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies Department of Philosophy This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2016 This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK copyright law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. Acknowledgements and Dedication My gratitude, firstly, to my thesis supervisors Eugen Fischer and John Collins. Eugen, as my unstinting primary supervisor, gave short shrift to my occasionally woolly thinking, detached me from my own dogmas and challenged me to raise the standard of my scholarship. Any academic merit that this thesis displays I owe to his guidance. Thanks also to colleagues, faculty and staff at the University of East Anglia, for revealing conversations in both formal and informal settings. Among others I must mention Lewis Clarke, Jessica Dollman, Gareth Jones, Janis Loschmann, Andrei Nasta, Liz McKinnell, Mihai Ometita, Sylvia Panizza, Fiona Roxburgh, Maria Serban, Sidra Shahid, Simon Summers and Odai al Zoubi. I am incredibly grateful to my wife, Karen, without whose emotional and material support I could never have embarked on this project. This work is dedicated to the memory of my late father, John Curtis, who imbued in me the sense that life should be marked by continual learning, curiosity and enquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 RELIGIOUS DISAGREEMENT Helen De Cruz This Is a Draft for A
    RELIGIOUS DISAGREEMENT Helen De Cruz This is a draft for a book that has appeared with Cambridge University Press. Please refer to the final published version: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/religious- disagreement/18A9B767E64FA47F97CD8E9814233210 Contents 1 How should we respond to religious disagreement? 1.1 The significance of religious disagreement 1.2 Conciliationism and steadfastness 1.3 Is religious disagreement philosophically intractable? 1.4 Is religious disagreement insensitive to evidence? 1.5 Private evidence and religious disagreement 2 Irrelevant influences and religious disagreement 2.1 You only believe that because 2.2 How irrelevant influences affect religious beliefs 2.3 The safety objection 2.4 The arbitrariness objection 2.5 Making religious diversity work in the philosophy of religion 3 Conversion and disagreement with former selves 3.1 Religious conversion and the Independence Principle 3.2 Conversion as a transformative experience 3.3 Disagreement with one’s former self 3.4 Disagreement with a recently converted peer 1 3.5 Rational argument and conversion 3.6 Thoughtful disagreement 4 What (if anything) can we infer from common consent? 4.1 What common consent might mean 4.2 The original Consensus Gentium: from innateness to truth 4.3 Common consent, self-trust, and evidence 4.4 Synergy and the epistemic significance of consent 5 Religious expertise and disagreement 5.1 The importance of religious expertise in disagreement 5.2 What is a religious expert? 5.3 Two models to solve the novice/expert problem 5.4 The expert as teacher 5.5 Deciding who to trust: Maimonides on the sages 6 Why philosophy matters for religious disagreement References 2 Abstract This book examines what we can learn from religious disagreement, focusing on disagreement with possible selves and former selves, the epistemic significance of religious agreement, the problem of disagreements between religious experts, and the significance of philosophy of religion.
    [Show full text]