It's interesting how this closely aligns with the discussion over social justice. People who have been wronged seek justice for what is true. Due process of law is required for us to know what is true. So the difference is between the ontological and the epistemological. It's too easy to abuse the necessity of the epistemological process to obfuscate our knowledge of what is true. The social justice movement is a practice in statistics at best and mere anecdote at worst. If we seek civil justice, then we need to look for that threshold of evidence against a written law. It's much the same way that no matter how well someone does evidential apologetics (or any system of apologetics boiled down to epistemological methodology), unbelievers will find a reasonable excuse to deny the truth. Perfect justice cannot be manifest until the return of Christ who has perfect knowledge.
It's interesting how this closely aligns with the discussion over social justice. People who have been wronged seek justice for what is true. Due process of law is required for us to know what is true. So the difference is between the ontological and the epistemological. It's too easy to abuse the necessity of the epistemological process to obfuscate our knowledge of what is true. The social justice movement is a practice in statistics at best and mere anecdote at worst. If we seek civil justice, then we need to look for that threshold of evidence against a written law. It's much the same way that no matter how well someone does evidential apologetics (or any system of apologetics boiled down to epistemological methodology), unbelievers will find a reasonable excuse to deny the truth. Perfect justice cannot be manifest until the return of Christ who has perfect knowledge.
ReplyDelete