Observations in Facts & Faith

Observations in Facts & Faith


The fact is that we don’t know what we don’t know, and when the time comes, if the time comes that we do know what we didn’t know, then that which was previously thought to be fact, may in fact, not be a fact anymore. A bit wordy, yes, so let me explain.

For example, the telephone.  Before we had telephones we didn’t know that there would one day be telephones, because we didn’t know there could be telephones. When the time came for the invention, then we knew that it was possible, it was real, and that the previous fact, that there were no such things as telephones, actually had an expiry date.

Scientific facts can only be based on what we know this far. Scientific study is inexhaustible. There can be no end, because our views continue to change, making yesterday’s unknowns into today’s scientific facts and tomorrow’s research.

Some things, such as gravity, are considered to be laws, because they don’t change. They are factual laws, at least at this point in time.  The law of gravity does not change without some pervasive influence, and even then the law has not changed, it has just been manipulated. Few things are as absolute. But, even so, we only know about the law of gravity in our experience with it this far. We don’t know what we don’t know. And that’s a fact.

When it comes to faith, it’s kind of the same.  We don’t know what we don’t know. Theological study is also inexhaustible. There can be no end, because our views continue to change, making yesterday’s unknowns into today’s dogmatic facts and tomorrow’s research. 

For example, before Jesus was born, His teaching was not known or understood. Those who followed Judaism did not know what they did not know until the time in which they did know, which resulted in significant changes for many. 

The difference with faith, as I’ve heard mentioned and know from experience, is that the change from what we don’t know to what we do know is an internal experience for each faith-full individual. It makes the standard tests for authenticity too subjective for universal acceptance. But, does that make those changes less factual? I don’t think so. They are just factual in a different way. 

Scientific facts are considered to be objective. Faith facts are considered to be subjective. I think both are acceptable and factual, with the disclaimer that we don’t know what we don’t know.