r/u_Any-Country-7338

“When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics… Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

David Hume dropped that bomb in 1748. He was drawing a hard line: if a book doesn’t contain either abstract reasoning about math and logic, or experimental reasoning based on observable facts, then it’s worthless — unscientific.

This kind of thinking became enormously influential. It helped shape the modern Western mind: the widespread assumption that real knowledge must be scientific knowledge. If you can’t measure it, test it, or prove it empirically, then it’s not scientific.

But there’s a fatal flaw in this view.

Hume’s own principle fails its own test. The claim that “only empirical evidence or math counts as knowledge” is not something you can discover in a laboratory or prove with an equation. It is itself a philosophical claim — the philosophy of empiricism. It’s metaphysics dressed up as science. By its own definition it is not science.

This move doesn’t just limit what we can know — it changes the very nature of truth itself.

When truth is reduced to only what can be quantified and observed, it becomes dry and abstract. We’re left with formal logic and propositions, but we lose something far richer: coherent, relational truth. We lose the kindness in truth. The truth that exists between persons where logic and love are two sides of the same coin — where “right relationship” is the heart of what it means to be truly logical. We lose fidelity.

Cut off that personal dimension, and objective morality stops making sense. How can there be real moral obligations in a universe that is ultimately impersonal and merely factual?

This is precisely what the first empiricist did in Eden.

The woman was already thinking about touching the fruit. The serpent didn’t give her new sense data — he simply redirected her. He moved her away from trusting God’s loving personal word and invited her to become the judge of reality herself, using empirical senses and reason as if they were own her private possession and not God given.

“You will not surely die… your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

In that moment, the serpent offered the original version of empiricism: trust your own empirical judgment. Become the autonomous knower. Reject the personal authority of God’s word and make yourself the final standard.

Here is the deep contradiction: the subjective person declares himself the objective measure of all things. The philosophy that claims to be purely objective ends up enthroning individual subjective experience as the ultimate authority.

That same move — trading tender, personal, relational truth for cold observation is what empiricism has done to us and our culture. It doesn’t just limit knowledge. It blinds us to the personal nature of ultimate reality and leaves us empty of dignity and real meaning. Objective purpose and morality become impossible categories.

But for some, that is the allure. Empiricism provides the contradictory illusion of freedom- in a cold factual world of subjective moral autonomy. But for others like myself, it sacrifices tenderness, vulnerabilty, and comprehensive loving truth in the process. Ultimately, we sacrafice God on a cross. A cross he submits to in love- as a means to atone for our fall, and as a demonstration in his mercy that he he does not condemn us, but LOVES us.

In Luke's ressurection account, Jesus appears to his disciples empirically, in the flesh- and says, "Peace to you." I would have assumed it would indeed bring them peace, now knowing that their teacher had risen as he had told them he would. But peace, it turns out, is a state of mind born of sufficient understanding.

Their reaction is important. They are startled and terrified and immediately conclude that he is a ghost. Jesus says to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and me feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see."

Jesus provides them empirical evidence and invites them to see with their eyes and touch with their hands. Jesus then says, "For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have?" And Luke says that while the disciples still disbelieved for joy and marveled, Jesus asked for a piece of broiled fish and ate it in front of them.

With the fish, Jesus adds another layer of empirical evidence. Luke says it was then that he opened their minds to understand the scriptures about Him. Luke then skips straight to the ascension.

John adds important details about the disciples telling Thomas that they had seen the Lord. They had an empirical encounter. It is striking that Thomas refuses to believe without that empirical evidence for himself. It tells us that like the other disciples, ressurection was not on their radar. What stands out is their collective disbelief and resistance.

Thomas then has 8 days to think about what he had heard with his own empirical ears from the other disciples. He also has time to recount what Jesus had said beforehand. So when Jesus appears to him and says, 'Peace be with you', Thomas does not react as the others did. He simply declares, My Lord, and my God!

Jesus proceeds to ask what may be the most important rhetorical question in history, "Have you believed because you have seen me?" And follows with, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." The lesson is something we already know. Seeing is not believing. Understanding is.

I am arguing that over those 8 days, Thomas had already come to understand sufficently to believe. I suspect he was in fact eager. He had largely and already acquired the stability and peace of mind necessary to prepare him for the impossible.

When Jesus says, 'Blessed are those who have not seen'- he means with our physical eyes. Again, Jesus' lesson is that seeing is not believing. Understanding is.

He is correcting the first error, when mankind fell for the lie that by seeing with our eyes, touching, and tasting- we can reach out and take for ourselves God's omniscient knowledge. We can become like God, autonomously certain. The serpent advocated for what is today called naive empiricism.

Empirical evidence is never certain proof. It is simply empirical data and empirical sense perception. That data must be interpreted by God's Word (the logos). To understand and gain knowledge, the empirical data must be interpreted logically. That is why we trust Jesus's interpretation of scripture above all others. It is because he IS the Logos.

So logos, the true light according to John and the light that God gives to everyone- is the light that enables us to understand that 1+2=3. That very same logical light also enables us to understand that if a man rises from the dead, our own understanding of reality must be revolutionized.

Do you understand?