Theological Axioms
13 Sep '07 06:551 editSuggested Axioms for Theological Discourse
A1: A supernatural category.
—i.e., that reality is not exhausted by the natural totality (universe).
—I might call this the “categorical axiom.”
A2: Communicability.
—i.e., revelation: either (a) natural or (b) mystical, either by direct mystical experience or via written revelation recording such experience.
—This entails the ability of the supernatural to have access to the natural realm. The same holds for the ability of the supernatural to act in the natural realm.
—If the supernatural either cannot or does not communicate to the natural realm, nothing can be known of it; and A1 is an epistemically empty category.
A3: Coherency.
—i.e., that what is communicated is done so in such a way as to be meaningfully accessed and understood by our cognitive faculties.
—also that it can be meaningfully communicated in human discourse.
______________________________________
These axioms are intended in the sense that, as Dr. Scribbles put it, “An axiom is any proposition serving as a standard of truth within some universe of discourse.”
See: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65825 (“Calling Out the Logical Lion (Dr.S.)” ) for the Good Doktor’s exposition.
If one does not accept such axioms as “standards of truth,” one will conclude that such discourse is meaningless. One might, of course, accept such axioms strictly “for the sake of argument”—e.g., to assess the internal consistency of a particular theological system. However, that does not mean that one sees any (isomorphic) connection with that theological system (its propositions, stories and symbols, etc.) and reality.
The above list is not meant to be exhaustive, but merely what I could come up with. It does, however, seem to me to be minimal.
A1: A supernatural category.
—i.e., that reality is not exhausted by the natural totality (universe).
—I might call this the “categorical axiom.”
A2: Communicability.
—i.e., revelation: either (a) natural or (b) mystical, either by direct mystical experience or via written revelation recording such experience.
—This entails the ability of the supernatural to have access to the natural realm. The same holds for the ability of the supernatural to act in the natural realm.
—If the supernatural either cannot or does not communicate to the natural realm, nothing can be known of it; and A1 is an epistemically empty category.
A3: Coherency.
—i.e., that what is communicated is done so in such a way as to be meaningfully accessed and understood by our cognitive faculties.
—also that it can be meaningfully communicated in human discourse.
______________________________________
These axioms are intended in the sense that, as Dr. Scribbles put it, “An axiom is any proposition serving as a standard of truth within some universe of discourse.”
See: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65825 (“Calling Out the Logical Lion (Dr.S.)” ) for the Good Doktor’s exposition.
If one does not accept such axioms as “standards of truth,” one will conclude that such discourse is meaningless. One might, of course, accept such axioms strictly “for the sake of argument”—e.g., to assess the internal consistency of a particular theological system. However, that does not mean that one sees any (isomorphic) connection with that theological system (its propositions, stories and symbols, etc.) and reality.
The above list is not meant to be exhaustive, but merely what I could come up with. It does, however, seem to me to be minimal.