Epistemological Relativism

So, I’m reading Without Roots, by Pera and Ratzinger and stumbled across a sentence I cannot help but respond to.

…dialogue cannot be an instrument for the discovery of truth, because Revelation plays that role. In other words, in Christianity truth is not a process, but a state, not a becoming but a being.

– Marcello Pera, Without Roots, p.28

Having never read anything by Pera in the past, I don’t have any real reference point to infer what he may be getting at. Reading this sentence as it stands however, I have to take issue. Even if we grant that Revelation is a valid source of knowledge, it does not follow that we, without the aid of our reason, can understand unequivocally, through whatever medium this revelatory knowledge is delivered, these truths. In other words, there will always be a human mind receiving data. If this is so, then we have all of the baggage that goes along with the human receiver. Time, place, language, culture, religion, all of this will undoubtedly influence the receiver’s interpretation of data. To presume that we are a blank slate capable of receiving data, delivered in most cases within a historical context, exactly as a divine authority intended it is quite amusing. From what I’ve read so far, I don’t think Pera intends this, but I can’t be sure. This objective truth that Pera refers to may be a state, but human minds still have to go through a process of apprehension. This process, as history has no doubt proven, is always a challenge to get right. Furthermore, how do we know when we have received the *truth* and not falsehood? Which measurements do we use? Here, we fall back again upon time, place, language and culture. We judge this truth based on our current criteria for truth. So, if Revelation is a valid source of knowledge, we have to answer in a very real way how we gain access to that knowledge when it is encased in anthropological dressing.

General, Philosophy, Theology Joseph Ratzinger, Marcello Pera

What smites us with unquenchable amazement is not that which we grasp and are able to convey but that which lies within our reach but beyond our grasp; not the quantitative aspect of nature but something qualitative; not what is beyond our range of time and space but the true meaning, source and end of being, in other words, the ineffable.

– Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man is Not Alone P.4

Many times we experience things we do not fully understand and cannot begin to adequately articulate. It is as if something has grasped us as we struggle in search for meaning or something bigger than ourselves. Sometimes we are grasped even when we are not searching. Heschel comes very close, I think, to explaining this sort of experience. To those that are fortunate enough to share in such an encounter, Heschel’s words need little explanation. Nature’s mysteries sometimes draw us into this mystery of causes. Who or what is this mystery that we sometimes glimpse however dimly? What is it that we feel kinship with in those mundane and extradinary of times? Is it imagination or wishful expectation or something much, much greater?

Books, Theology, Thoughts Abraham Joshua Heschel, Theology