Thread by @EveKeneinan

Because idiots are going to idiot, I may as well explain this.

Some things are doubtful to various degrees, and some things are not.

Everyone knows that the question to ask the smug high-school kind who says “Nothing is certain!” is “Are you certain of that?”

Everyone also knows that they are certain of a large number of things indeed.

Descartes was the first to EMPHASIZE this at the beginning of modern philosophy, with his famous COGITO, SUM, “I think; I am!”

Everyone is CERTAIN of his own existence.

It is obviously INCOHERENT not to be certain of one’s own existence, because the very act of attempting to entertain doubts of your existence is YOUR ACT of which your are at the same time IMMEDIATELY AWARE—which proves your existence.

So you know with certainty that you exist, if you are capable of even entertaining the question.

But that is not all.

You are ALSO certain of everything you experience.

If you think you are (phenomenally) in pain, you are in pain. You cannot be mistaken about this.

What is it about this kind of thing that cause it to have certainty? Descartes identified it (as most philosophers have) with its directness, its immediacy. “Clear and distinction perception,” was his phrase, which as wordy way of expression his version of the Ancient νόησις.

How does this relate to certainty regarding God?

I’m going to explain it logically first, and then experientially.

1 God is omnipotent. He can do anything possible.
2 ∴ God can reveal Himself to you.
(here comes the part people don’t think through)
3 ∴ God can reveal Himself to you in such a manner that completely SATISFIES the certainty criterion (WHATEVER IT IS) to a maximal degree.

Let me point that that no. 3 there doesn’t say “God can give you some vague feeling of certainty, which might nevertheless be wrong.”

It means “WHATEVER IT IS THAT LEGITIMATELY GUARANTEES CERTAINTY, GOD CAN GIVE YOU THAT WHEN HE REVEALS HIMSELF.”

Given God’s omnipotence, there is no way to avoid this conclusion, short of denying (with certainty) that there is no criterion of certainty, or deny that an omnipotent God cannot provide such certainty, both of which claims are self-defeating and incoherent.

I recovered my intellectual belief in God as I result of philosophical reflection of a course of more than a dozen years. It was at least a decade more before my I found my way, partly for existential reasons, to religious faith, as opposed to a mere philosophical idea of God.

My recovery of a living faith, albeit an nascent one, did open me up to spiritual experiences to which I had been blind previously, but they were along the normal “spiritual learning curve” as I began to pray and deepen my spiritual exercises.

My encounter with God was wholly unexpected and like nothing I was prepared for or could have been prepared for.

The details are too personal and I do not elect to share them.

But I will say two things about it.

First, it was existentially shattering. It broke down and through anything and everything like emotional, rational, or other such defenses.

Second, and this is the thing that still amazes me as a philosopher, was the absolute certainty the experience carried with it.

The only way I have been able to others an IDEA of what it was like is this: “Before my encounter with God, I thought that I could not be certain of anything more than of my own existence, which I regard as absolutely certain. But I was wrong. This was MORE certain than that."

I am aware that “more certain that absolutely certain” in a certain way (pun intended) makes no sense.

I think, however, it is senseless in a meaningful way, as for example, when St. Dionysius says of evil “it is more not than nonbeing.”

Recently, in reading and in looking through some of the quotes I post on here, I recently saw a few that indicate I AM NOT ALONE in having such an experience.

All these speak of something like that, at least conceptually, some experientially.

“Self-verifying character” … “to one who has dealt with God personally, atheism could only ever be an academic hypothesis” … “we should regard disproofs of God as two friends would laugh over disproofs of each other” … “something of the same has come to all who found God."

I know well that “something of the same” that William James’ reporter speaks of. I’ve been there, and experienced that.

Atheism is absurd, and can be shown to be so by reason alone, but it’s also … simply laughable. The atheist is wrong. And I know he is.

I am of course aware that I cannot demonstrate to the atheist that he is wrong with a discursive proof that he will be FORCED (somehow) to accept.

God can be proven, but not by those who reject proofs as proofs. 🤷🏻‍♀️

But that’s generally not my interest or my business.

I know God is just and that every atheist or so-called atheist (for many of them really are not) will be given a fair chance.

All damnation is self-damnation, as we know.

Atheism will, in the end, I suspect, no longer be an option, but apartness from God will be.

It is wisely said in Holy Scripture than Christians are to “give an account” — that’s a philosophical term, the one in my profile, λόγον διδόναι — of the hope that is in our hearts.

Scripture says we should share the good news with all—not produce discursive proofs for atheists.

Merely proving something is rarely convincing. One needs to be a rather abstract thinker to be convinced by an abstract logical proof. That’s maybe 1 in 10,000 men, if I’m being generous.

And 1 in 20,000 women. 😁

I am only a philosopher who speaks her mind. I never set out to be an “apologist,” but it also seems right to me that I “defend” (ἀπολεγειν) the Christian faith in the sense of showing it to be entirely reasonable to hold to be true.

ἀπολεγειν, incidentally, also means “to tell fully” as well as “to give a defense”—implicitly suggesting the way to defend a view is to tell about it fully.

Not all things are given to us to be known, and at the heart of the Christian Faith there are mysteries, and often we do well to remember that we are called to PARTICIPATE in the Holy Mysteries (what the Latins call the Sacraments), NOT TO UNDERSTAND THEM.

The Christian Faith irreducibly relates one to Holy Mysteries that will never (in this life) be fully understood, and to a God Who surpasses all understanding.

But at the same time there is much we can know, and somewhat we know with certainty.

The Christian Faith is never been repugnant to or hostile toward reason or λόγος. Christ Himself is the eternal Λόγος through which all things were created and thus made intelligible to our human λόγος.

The contrary is a damned LIE OF HELL and THE ENLIGHTENMENT.

It always rather amazed me that so many of the Greeks were taken in by the sophists SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CALLED THEMSELVES “THE WISE MEN.”

I’ve also never quite been able to wrap my head around taking men seriously SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CALLED THEMSELVES “THE ENLIGHTENED."

If I were in a certain mood, I would point out that, regarding “Enlightenment” that Satan is also Lucifer, the LIGHT BRINGER.

Take that for what it is worth. 🤷🏻‍♀️

But about the Enlightenment: by their fruits you shall know them.

Look at the world, and judge for yourself.

I’ve been going a while, and I think it is time to get back to Poul Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions, one of the great fantasy novels, where a paladin can cause the soulless fae to flee at the sign of the Cross or at the Holy Name of the Son of God.

"In olden time, richt after the Fall, nigh everything were Chaos, see ye. But step by step ’tis been driven back. The longest step was when the Saviour lived on earth, for then naught o’ darkness could stand and great Pan himself died."

☦️😁

Hic finit certatus.