reference© can be dhiecked for accuracy. Hone of this can be said for argument© conducted in the ëiadow of an incontestable revelation - usually' ifJith the disputante quaking under the tyranny of heresy indict- monte. Too often a thorough-going reliance upon revelation is an inviol
able metliod of guaranteeing tiie truth of some otherwise undwonstrabl# point. Since by tlie very nature of its epistemological position it is private and wxconfimable by ordinary empirical standards, appeals to revelatim readily degenerate into a desperate expedient*
There is one counter-argment lAlbh Apologists might put forward wliich seems to me to have seme merit. The person In possession of a revelation su<ix as those major pronouncements of Scripture, or even that Wiich is contained in Scripture is indubitable, mi#%t defend his claims as follows; After epistemological objections have failed to render his claim untenable (Of. Kierkegaard discussion. Ch. 4), he might declare tl^t the nature of the meperience wlxich he has undergone is simply not amenable to conüjcmtion by ordimry methods, and then go on to bmioan tîiis fact, possessing such certainty of the trutli of his revelation that he ardently desires to present proof to the leagues of doubters on tJxeir own grounds. However, assuming he is sincere and thoroughly corivinced of the exclusive character of his revelation, he will refuse to be untms to. hie eaqporienco by saying it is rationalistic rather than legalietio and therefore open to ordinary confimation* He would make the same claims whether this position was favourable or unfavourable to the credi bility of his conclusions* In tliis case tbe consequences of the nature of the experience happen in one sense to be favourable, for it is iixereby
69
placed beyond conventional criticiaa# and at the same time #%ey are unfavourable^ in that public proof cannot be «applied*
As a comparable case one mi#t cite the philosopher % objection to concluding the actual existence of God from human desjlres that He exist. •The results of a Christian God possessing ontological status w u M
pm*tainiy be miotionally satisfying^ e*g* #s would have an omnipotent being to intervene on our behalf in answer to prayers, wo would, upon
commitment to various tenets, be guaranteed eternal life, we would have firmly codified laws of moral conduct, we would be assured of just
deserts being meted out in the next world to the unscrupulous but power^ ful entrepreneurs, politicians, and opportunists of this world. But the existence of God is not a fact for these desirable consequences; the wi# does not imply an objective reality, as every writer will tell you whose hopes for publication have remained unfulfilled, and every psychologist will tell you who is acquainted with the twisted thinking arising from wish’^fulfillment desires#
Similarly, althou^ the man In possession of a self-*c<uivincing revelation may wish that the accuracy of his experience was testable b;^ the usual empiricàl validating methods, he cannot claim that It is* fet
I
like the poet, painter and cos#oser, he uses a particular medium because the special reality which he is pursuing is best captured in this form. Perhaps the artists* insists are scmewhat translatable into conceptual language as the critic attmgpts to do, but his theme is best expressed, that is most fully and adequately expressed, in the forms which the artists have chosen for them* It is far more probable #at artists do not write essays to conv^ the subject matter which preoccupies them
■ %
70
-, %-
because they find this form unsuitable or inadequate, than that!, they are illiterate, inarticulate or even unadept at reasonable expression. A sequence of notes, a poetic imago, or a brush stroke is found to be more deeply eloquent to express the profundities which the artist feels he has
n.- glicQjsed, than any syllogistic formulation*
In the same wpy the revelationist will bo convinced tliat the essence of his subject matter, God in this instance, is most fully grasped (or perhaps can only be grasped), by mans of the medium of revelation. îlo
i
matter how mudi pressure is exerted upon him in the form of stressing the episteaological an^ methodological difficulties Inherent in his stand, he will not claim that the cmcept of God or His attributes bears fomulatim in straightforward, ordinary terms* To assert this mode of reality to
•• V •
his revelation would be to perjure himself before the Holy Spjtfit* What he will insist upon however is #iat his experience be given space along#' ||i side of other types of experience that happen (ex hyoothesl) more
I easily verifiable* He will argue that it is philosophically i&isound to be prag^satically prejudiced in favour of, for example, the more *scien* tifically* desirable experiences ^ i*e* those that can be scrutinised in test tubes, analysed in truth tables, dissected under jaicroscopcs,
( inscribed in historical documents or recorded on statistical charts* He
: i
will fume and rant about revelation being of such a private nature that f : it often nourishes an obscurantist dogmatisa or infallibilism, thkt it ( ! sanctifies the utterances of the crank or bigot no less than the prophet
and offers spurious justification for atrocities even after eplstwaolog^ I leal considerations have eliminated certain undesirables; but he will ' demand with equal vehemence that his revelation not be discredited out of
I
71
hand because it fails to eadiibit oharacterlstics #ioh it necessarily does not possess. This wuld be the negative version of the hdturalistic
fallacy in reverse* It is derying a claim as to What $is* on the basis of What the consequences *ought* not to be!
A good deal can be said for the validity of this point of view. To my mind every objection against it merely eEçjhasises the utility and
facllity--of«handling of the mderpinnings of other t;^es of theories and the tremendous risks of self«deoeption or deliberate falsification Inher-# ent in reveXationary claims* Admittedly these are important considerations in themselves, but the utmost efficacy Wiich such criticisme can have is to caution us to be more charjr of revelation as a means of gaining knowl-# edge than we need to be about human experiences which are open to public verification! they cannot entirely dispense with this way of knowledge or the claims arising therefrom# Because the process is fallible it does
not follow that the conclusion is necessarily untrue, any more tWn we cm conclude ocmplete human ignorance from our liability to eiror. We
cannot pontificate that revelation is so unreliable that. In the inter ests of scimce, it ou^t to be excluded from serious consideration or relegated to a subservient position, for thereby we may be eliminating a
mode of reality Wiich does not lend itself to expression in aiiy other form# However deep our personal distaste for this >tour de force*, it
might well be something for idiich we should perhaps be thankful some would say, thankful to God.
72