{Archetypes and Qualities(1) [continued]}[11th April 1987]

[Redbook3:170-171][19870411:2200b]{Archetypes and Qualities(1) [continued]}[11th April 1987]

19870411.2200

[continued]

Reading the (basically quite correct*) letter criticising the ABofC's** methodology[,] in The Times of yesterday, it struck me that we do set an impossible standard for verification of God. God is the Truth beyond Proof***, I suspect; but then so, ultimately, is everything else: beyond proof.**** We make certain assumptions based on common sense/experience in all our methods of verification, which is why some philosophers have such fun painting themselves into academic corners (before the practical requirements of everyday life lead them to fly out of those corners#). Even Scientists tend to accept a theory that makes sense, until some observation shows that it does not.

A Transcendental, initiating, natural-law-making God#* still makes sense at the fundamental point of Cosmology and (almost certainly) Physics; nothing else seems to. In terms of legal evidence, no doubt many people would be prepared to swear to a personal experience of an aspect of God: presumably this is the assumption behind the Oath in Court.#**

If (as seems to be the case, understandably, when the question of God arises) the only degree of proof of God you are prepared to accept is an absolute proof (and there is something#*** to suggest that the thing susceptible of absolute proof must be the Absolute Truth); and if (as argued earlier#****) the only kind of knowledge which is absolutely true is inner direct knowledge, such as my experience of xS; and if (as suggested above) the inner direct knowledge of a Quality (such as xS's) is the only absolutely true knowledge we can achieve of the objective Quality of Absolute Truth (or of an aspect of it, or of something nearest to it); then even if God is the Truth beyond Proof – it at the very least makes sense to concentrate our search for God as the Absolute Truth, in the Inner Sense through which these absolutely true Qualities appear.

*(if accurate)(& if complete!<0417>)

**{Archbishop of Canterbury}

***[2]

****(quite logically, if All is One; but independently of this logic also.)

#('with one bound, he was free' (& home again in time for tea).

#*(cf Start of '[2]')

#**! I doubt it. <930418>

#***What? <930418> (i.e. the next part of this sentence) <880806> [I think the bracketed text which includes the footnoted word was intended to be an assertion, not a part of the condition.]

#**** (ref p123-124 [[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]])

[continues]

[PostedBlogger12042016]