Revelation, reason and experience

I spoke last post about two foundations upon which determine truth, reason and experience. Such traditions stem from the rationalist and empiricists. Yet, most truths we believe as true do not come from either. This is not to say, we do not apply both reason and experience to every truth we come upon, just that it most often not the first step in discovering truth. So what is this truth foundation? 

Revelation. 

Think about it this way, of all the facts, truths, and principles you stick to, how many of them first came to you by reason or experience? Sure, you could say, that those truths came through the reason and experiences of others (which I will get into later), but primarily most of what we know to be true has been revealed to us. 


When Descartes began his exploration of radical doubt, he wanted to scrap all revelation. He started with the assumption, that it could be a lie. Thus, he determined the first truth he knew to be true was that he existed. Eventually, using reason, he concluded that in order to know anything beyond himself, he’d would still have lean unto revelation. Or, as to paraphrase his logic, “If God has created, thinking, perceiving beings, surely he is a good creator and wouldn’t create a web of deceptions.” Later both some rationalist and empiricists disagreed with his logic. 

Yet, we can’t deny the power revelation has in our wrestling with truths. For instance, if I were to ask, “Who was the first president?” Generally, we’d agree that is was George Washington. How do we know this? We were not sitting in a closet somewhere wrestling and had an epiphany, “Oh, It’s George Washington.” Nor, have any of us met the man. And, again some will say, but we’re leaning on the experiences of others… Hold that thought. 

Let’s delve into the realm of science. And, I will mention a truth nearly all of us accept (supposedly there’s a group going around that doesn’t, but I think their voice is often over bolstered… I won’t get into the reasons why). The Earth is round. We accept this, or at least should. But, most of us have never actually been to space to see this for ourselves. Yes, we’ve seen pictures, but playing around with Descartes’ idea of radical doubt, one could say these photos are faked. In addition, most of us haven’t even performed the various mathematical experiments that show this fact to be reasonable. I read about them, but I’ve never actually done them. Ultimately, I trust the authorities that have revealed this truth to me. Yes, I do apply both logic and my experiences to such claims, but if no one told me the Earth was round, would I still believe it? I like to think so because I’m a super-genius, but who knows? 

Again some would say, yes, but with both cases we’re relying on the experience and logic of others. True. Yet, there are still even deeper truths… Particularly, moral truths, or theories. Let’s say you were waiting in line, someone cuts in front of you. What’s your first reaction? Even if you don’t say anything, deep inside side of you, pangs of injustice stir. Where does this sense of justice come from? Does society really ingrain this in us? If you believe that to be true, try taking a toy from a child who has not be acclimated to the ways of the world. What’s his or her reaction? “Mommy, that’s not fair.” From where does this sense of justice come? 

And then comes the concept of the moral dilemma. At the heart of many dilemmas stem the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual. Via reason and experience, we tend to believe that whatever is the best for the most people is the right choice… or the truth. But there are a gob of psychological tests that challenge that idea. One such test poses a scenario. A train is heading toward five people tied to a track. You are at a switch that reroutes the train. However, on that path one person is tied. Do you actively send that person to die in order to passively avoid the death of others? Now to ratchet up the moral dilemma, let’s say you’re on a bridge, same scenario, but this time in order to save the five people down the track, you have to push a person off the bridge in order to stop the train. I’m not asking if you would do it, I’m just asking what sort of voices speak to you as you make such a decision. How do both reason and experience help you decide? Why are these decisions so tough? Clearly, a person will use both reason and experience to defend whichever choice they make, but still neither choice will be easy. 

Thus, when our leaders make choices that affect millions, some will scream “injustice.” Others will declare it was necessary. Most, simply cling to moral decisions that are best for themselves as individuals. But when unaffected, they’ll be quick to say, “Think of the many.” 

Why is there such strife within us? 

Speaking plainly and controversially, moral truths have been revealed to us. We don’t rationalize them. We don't discover them via experience. Romans 1:18-20 makes this clear. Yet, we often suppress moral truths because they often get in the way of the things we want. Now, how do I know this to be true? Because this truth has been revealed. (Sure, it also seems reasonable, and fits my experiences). 

“So why am I to believe your revelation over my reason and experience?” You may ask. I am simply saying we all lean heavily into revelation as we come to recognize truths. And, yes, most--in fact, all--revelation comes from the reason and experience of others, or another. But how do we determine which rational and empirical authority is worth following, particularly when we delve into the realm of the moral and metaphysical? 

What authority should I cling most tightly to? One of the human variety? If so, which? Who? Or, should I cling to an all-knowing, all experiencing authority? An authority tied to some sort of historical context? It’s not easy. And clearly my own reason and experiences get in the way. Or, twist the applications of such revelation…