http://bahai-library.com/file
THE CRITERIONS OF TRUTH
http://www.bahai-library.com
During my visit to London and Paris last year[1911.] I had many talks
with the materialistic philosophers of Europe. The basis of all their
conclusions is that the acquisition of knowledge of phenomena is
according to a fixed, invariable law,--a law mathematically exact in
its operation through the senses. For instance, the eye sees a chair;
therefore there is no doubt of the chair's existence. The eye looks up
into the heavens and beholds the sun; I see flowers upon this table; I
smell their fragrance; I hear sounds outside, etc., etc. This, they
say, is a fixed mathematical law of perception and deduction, the
operation of which admits of no doubt whatever; for inasmuch as the
universe is subject to our sensing, the proof is self-evident that our
knowledge of it must be gained through the avenues of the senses. That
is to say, the materialists announce that the criterion and standard
of human knowledge is sense perception. Among the Greeks and Romans
the criterion of knowledge was reason; that whatever is provable and
acceptable by reason must necessarily be admitted as true. A third
standard or criterion is the opinion held by theologians that
traditions or prophetic statement and interpretations constitute the
basis of human knowing. There is still another, a fourth criterion
upheld by religionists and metaphysicians who say that the source and
channel of all human penetration into the unknown is through
inspiration. Briefly then, these four criterions according to the
declarations of men are: First--Sense Perception; Second--Reason;
Third--Traditions; Fourth--Inspiration.
In Europe I told the philosophers and scientists of materialism that
the criterion of the senses is not reliable. For instance, consider a
mirror and the images reflected in it. These images have no actual
corporeal existence. Yet if you had never seen a mirror you would
firmly insist and believe that they were real. The eye sees a mirage
upon the desert as a lake of water but there is no reality in it. As
we stand upon the deck of a steamer the shore appears to be moving,
yet we know the land is stationary and we are moving. The earth was
believed to be fixed and the sun revolving about it but although this
appears to be so, the reverse is now known to be true. A whirling
torch makes a circle of fire appear before the eye, yet we realize
there is but one point of light. We behold a shadow moving upon the
ground but it has no material existence, no substance. In deserts the
atmospheric effects are particularly productive of illusions which
deceive the eye. Once I saw a mirage in which a whole caravan appeared
traveling upward into the sky. In the far north other deceptive
phenomena appear and baffle human vision. Sometimes three or four suns
called by scientists "mock suns" will be shining at the same time
whereas we know the great solar orb is one and that it remains fixed
and single. In brief, the senses are continually deceived and we are
unable to separate that which is reality from that which is not.
As to the second criterion--reason--this likewise is unreliable and
not to be depended upon. This human world is an ocean of varying
opinions. If reason is the perfect standard and criterion of
knowledge, why are opinions at variance and why do philosophers
disagree so completely with each other? This is a clear proof that
human reason is not to be relied upon as an infallible criterion. For
instance, great discoveries and announcements of former centuries are
continually upset and discarded by the wise men of today.
Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists continually disprove
and reject the conclusions of the ancients; nothing is fixed, nothing
final; everything continually changing because human reason is
progressing along new roads of investigation and arriving at new
conclusions every day. In the future much that is announced and
accepted as true now will be rejected and disproved. And so it will
continue ad infinitum.
When we consider the third criterion--traditions--upheld by
theologians as the avenue and standard of knowledge, we find this
source equally unreliable and unworthy of dependence. For religious
traditions are the report and record of understanding and
interpretation of the Book. By what means has this understanding, this
interpretation been reached? By the analysis of human reason. When we
read the Book of God the faculty of comprehension by which we form
conclusions is reason. Reason is mind. If we are not endowed with
perfect reason, how can we comprehend the meanings of the Word of God?
Therefore human reason, as already pointed out, is by its very nature
finite and faulty in conclusions. It cannot surround the Reality
Itself, the Infinite Word. Inasmuch as the source of traditions and
interpretations is human reason, and human reason is faulty, how can
we depend upon its findings for real knowledge?
The fourth criterion I have named is inspiration through which it is
claimed the reality of knowledge is attainable. What is inspiration?
It is the influx of the human heart. But what are satanic promptings
which afflict mankind? They are the influx of the heart also. How
shall we differentiate between them? The question arises, How shall we
know whether we are following inspiration from God or satanic
promptings of the human soul? Briefly, the point is that in the human
material world of phenomena these four are the only existing
criterions or avenues of knowledge, and all of them are faulty and
unreliable. What then remains? How shall we attain the reality of
knowledge? By the breaths and promptings of the Holy Spirit which is
light and knowledge itself. Through it the human mind is quickened and
fortified into true conclusions and perfect knowledge. This is
conclusive argument showing that all available human criterions are
erroneous and defective, but the divine standard of knowledge is
infallible. Therefore man is not justified in saying "I know because I
perceive through my senses"; or "I know because it is proved through
my faculty of reason"; or "I know because it is according to tradition
and interpretation of the holy book"; or "I know because I am
inspired." All human standard of judgment is faulty, finite.
http://www.bahai-library.com
No comments:
Post a Comment