ecn-pa:alexande (03/30/83)
Scott Deerwester has made some interesting comments on the nature of proof in the context of faith. These comments call the question, however. The thing that needs to be asked is, how do we know things, i.e. what is sufficient proof. As a confirmed religionist myself, I have no doubt that Scott's proof is sufficient to him, but it is not sufficient to me, for I cannot feel what he is feeling. There must be some more exacting criteria for proof. Abdu'l-Baha, the great Baha'i teacher, says there are four criteria of knowledge: 1.) Sense Perception 2.) Reason 3.) Traditions 4.) Inspiration Sense perception is notably unreliable, as all of the senses can be fooled by relatively easily reproducible tricks. Reason is also unreliable. For one, philosophers who held this as the single criterion of knowledge often disagree with each other. Besides, reason must necessarily be based on some assumptions or facts, which must either come through sense perception or some other means. By traditions, Abdu'l-Baha was referring to religious traditions, specifically the testimony of the holy scriptures, such as the Bible. But He asserts that the understanding and interpretation of tradition is dependent on reason, which is faulty. The fourth criterion is inspiration. Abdu'l-Baha says that inspiration is the influx of the human heart. But He points out that this inspiration is thus indistinguishable from the promptings of humanity's animal nature, which is also the influx of the human heart. Thus, all human standard of judgement is faulty, finite. The closest we limited humans can come to true knowledge is to examine a thing by all of the methods and then turn to God for guidance into true conclusions and perfect knowledge. Alan Alexander-Manifold Purdue Library Systems Department pur-ee!ecn-pa.alexande