A radical shift in the zeitgiest was occurring: authority began to be questioned; a skeptical relativism spread among the intelligentsia; claims about God and moral absolutes were rejected; human belief was perceived to be nothing more than a social-construction; the Christian worldview continued to crumble, its primacy supplanted by secularism.
The “postmodern” age may have started late in the second millennium but it isn’t so different from the post-Renaissance era, circa 1630s.
Into that age of skepticism came the French Catholic mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes. Attempting to reestablish a firm footing for knowledge, Descartes decided to make a clean sweep of presuppositions by clearing away all that could be doubted. He applied the method with the precision of a mathematical proof. Cutting away anything that could be doubted, Descartes was left with only one piece of data that was clearly indubitable: the fact of his doubting.
Doubting is a form of thinking and thinking requires a thinker. The existence of the “I” that was doing the doubting, therefore, could not itself be doubted. Descartes discovered the foundation for all knowledge: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.
To modern ears the phrase is a cliché that has lost its force and novelty. But in the mid-17th century it marked a revolutionary philosophical shift. As Richard Tarnas explains in The Passion of the Western Mind:
Thus human reason establishes first its own existence, out of experiential necessity, then God’s existence, out of logical necessity, and thence the God-guaranteed reality of the objective world and its rational order. Descartes enthroned human reason as the supreme authority in matters of knowledge, capable of distinguishing certain metaphysical truth and of achieving certain scientific understanding of all the material world. Infallibility, once ascribed to Holy Scripture or the supreme pontiff, was now transferred to human reason itself. In effect, Descartes unintentionally began a theological Copernican revolution, for his mode of reasoning suggested that God’s existence was established by human reason and not vice versa.
While starting with the best of intentions, the Jesuit-trained Descartes made the mistake of starting with epistemology rather than ontology, with knowing rather than being. But, as James Sire points out, what is is prior to what can be known, for knowing itself implies the existence of a knower and something to be known. Ontology (being) precedes epistemology (knowing). Descartes made the error of reversing that order and in doing so, laid much of the groundwork of what we call modernity.
Over the past few decades, many Christians – particularly in the emerging church movement – have rightly questioned the validity of this view of epistemology. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.
Because it appears to be the opposite of certitude, doubt is often perceived to be a form of intellectual humility. Some even go so far as to claim that doubt can be virtuous. But nothing could be further from the truth! To doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. In rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty, they are making a similar mistake as Descartes. The change in epistemic stance merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name.
A contemporary of Descartes, the equally brilliant mathematician Blaise Pascal, recognized this problem over three hundred years ago:
So there is open war among men, in which each must take a part and side either with dogmatism or scepticism. For he who thinks to remain neutral is above all a sceptic. This neutrality is the essence of the sect; he who is not against them is essentially for them. In this appears their advantage. They are not for themselves; they are neutral, indifferent, in suspense as to all things, even themselves being no exception.
What, then, shall man do in this state? Shall he doubt everything? Shall he doubt whether he is awake, whether he is being pinched, or whether he is being burned? Shall he doubt whether he doubts? Shall he doubt whether he exists? We cannot go so far as that; and I lay it down as a fact that there never has been a real complete sceptic. Nature sustains our feeble reason and prevents it raving to this extent.
Shall he, then, say, on the contrary, that he certainly possesses truth-- he who, when pressed ever so little, can show no title to it and is forced to let go his hold?
What a chimera, then, is man! What a novelty! What a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, imbecile worm of the earth; depositary of truth, a sink of uncertainty and error; the pride and refuse of the universe!
Who will unravel this tangle? Nature confutes the sceptics, and reason confutes the dogmatists. What, then, will you become, O men! who try to find out by your natural reason what is your true condition? You cannot avoid one of these sects, nor adhere to one of them.
Know then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Humble yourself, weak reason; be silent, foolish nature; learn that man infinitely transcends man, and learn from your Master your true condition, of which you are ignorant. Hear God.
When we trust in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical. But when we set aside our self-idolotry and seek true epistemic humility by listening to God we find that knowledge comes from outside us. Ontology precedes epistemology. The Truth exists before we come to know the truth:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)
Christ is ontologically prior to all of Creation. We only know any truths because he exists. Christians can justifiably be skeptical about many things. But for us to ever question the existence of God is not epistemic humility but epistemic nihilism. For it to be conceivable that God does not exist would require that something exists ontologically prior to our ability to doubt. To think that God might not exist would mean that we are gods.
Understandably, this point might appear to lead back to a prideful certainty. What keeps us from slipping into dogmatism, though, is that our knowledge of God is not predicated on our reason or our ability to know but is rooted in the person of Jesus Christ. We are not merely making claims about him; we are merely recognizing what cannot but be acknowledged when we truly humble our reason – that Christ is Lord of all Creation.
1
Joe Carter writes: ...But when we set aside our self-idolotry and seek true epistemic humility by listening to God we find that knowledge comes from outside us...
Do we find that all knowledge comes from outside us (and not through our reasoning)? Or do we merely find that some knowledge otherwise unavailable through our reasoning comes to us from outside us? If not the former, then what can we know about the distinction between these two categories of knowledge? And how can we know it? What do we find we know about it?
I don't think you get to wave off all the problems of epistemology by declaring some propositions ontologically off limits.
posted on 05.26.2005 2:35 AM2
I'm not quite competent enough to do trackbacks, but my complaint is here.
posted on 05.26.2005 2:56 AM3
I'm hardly a philosopher, but I don't have that sort of problem with doubt. Even though there is real, truth about many things, in this particular case, the reality and the love of God as revealed in Jesus, I have doubts. That's simply because I'm human, imperfect, a sinner, forgiven but a sinner nonetheless. Doubt reminds me of this, and also of the important and very real distinction between knowledge and faith. Human knowledge is limited to those things that are seen or deduced from what is seen. Beyond this finite limit to knowledge, we're left with supposition, "models" of reality that may either be strengthened or rejected by future evidence, and faith which doesn't rely on evidence. Or as Paul writes, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
From my poor vantage, it seems dangerously arrogant to deny doubt. To do so seems to deny my sin and need for redemption. Faith doesn't necessarily deny doubt, nor vice versa. While I'm here, I'm left with the father of whom Mark writes, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." While certain knowledge of God is desirable, even though humanly unobtainable, isn't necessarily a virtue. After all, Satan doesn't have any doubts.
posted on 05.26.2005 3:20 AM4
Hi.
I'm a Christian musician begging for help. If you want to know my story and maybe help, go to http://helpformusic.blogspot.com/.
Thanks, and goodbye.
5
The existence of the “I” that was doing the doubting, therefore, could not itself be doubted. Descartes discovered the foundation for all knowledge: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.
To modern ears it sounds like, "Nice try; you have discovered that conciousness produces thought, but due to the highly fluid and impermanency of concioussness what you have discovered is either fleetingly existant, or, essentially a nullity that we would like to think is existant."
In our experience thoughts - and therefore thinkers- do not exist in the same sense as a real table in a real room exist.
And that little bit hopefully can save you the time it would take to read Being and Nothingness, although Jean-Paul gets quite good in describing how a waiter is playing a waiter to attempt to be a waiter is one big, fat nullity.
The rest of your post merits a response on my blog; it goes to a core reason of why Buddhists are Buddhists.
6
Mumon says: "In our experience thoughts - and therefore thinkers- do not exist in the same sense as a real table in a real room exist."
I don't know what you mean. Everything exists in precisely the same sense; and of what is not all we can say is that it is not. Of course things are not all of a kind, and a chair is not the same kind of thing as the thought of the chair. (Plausible enough, but like every philosophical claim, it has been disputed. Bishop Berkeley argued that the chair is, like the thought, a mental item.) But as concerns existence, it seems all that can be meaningfully said is that the chair and the thought of the chair both exist.
posted on 05.26.2005 8:33 AM7
Ontology precedes epistemology? Sounds more like a slogan from Van Til, or even Ayn Rand, than an indubitable axiom. If you had said that reality does not depend on perception, you would be on target. But you cannot start with ontology without using reason. You have to think, and you have to start somewhere. Agree with him or not, Descartes did not just start with epistemology. His cogito was a simultaneous declaration of what is known and how it is known.
posted on 05.26.2005 8:40 AM8
S9 Do we find that all knowledge comes from outside us (and not through our reasoning)? Or do we merely find that some knowledge otherwise unavailable through our reasoning comes to us from outside us? If not the former, then what can we know about the distinction between these two categories of knowledge? And how can we know it? What do we find we know about it?
No, some – perhaps most – knowledge comes from outside of us, through our senses. Epistemology, after all, does exist. But it has to be founded on something other than itself. Where does reason come from and why should we consider it reliable? We must have a foundation (epistemically, I’m a foundationlist, just not of the Descartes variety) before we can even begin to reason.
Strophyx From my poor vantage, it seems dangerously arrogant to deny doubt.
I don’t deny doubt anymore than I deny the reality of sin. My point, though, is that doubt (like sin) is a form of idolatry. It puts our own reason as the judge of God’s very Being.
David Ontology precedes epistemology? Sounds more like a slogan from Van Til, or even Ayn Rand, than an indubitable axiom.
You really think so? When I first heard it seemed rather obvious. Even Descartes can’t escape its logic; he just tries to reverse them as if you can work backward.
If you had said that reality does not depend on perception, you would be on target. But you cannot start with ontology without using reason.
And you can’t start with reason without it being founded in some ontological being.
You have to think, and you have to start somewhere. Agree with him or not, Descartes did not just start with epistemology. His cogito was a simultaneous declaration of what is known and how it is known.
True, but it only led to more skepticism. As a Christian, my foundation for epistemology is not my ability to reason (which cannot be a foundation for itself) but something outside my own being – Christ. No matter how hard we try, we simply don’t have the ability to start from ourselves and form an adequate foundation for reasoning.
posted on 05.26.2005 9:07 AM9
Franklin Mason:
The table is an object. Its being and existence- how it is from moment to moment- exactly coincide and are identical. A thought, by its fleeting, subjective nature, has no "being" and certainly does not exist apart from the conciousness that thinks it.
It is thus a "nullity," in the sense that it lacks an intrinsic being in itself. (I haven't read Sartre in years...I can't believe I can still expound on this stuff.)
Sartre goes on to make one of a basic critique of human existence that forms a moral basis for both his brand of existentialism, and is echoed somewhat in Buddhism: it is when and because we try to equate "being in itself" with the sort of being that a thought/conciousness is ("being for itself") that problems arise. This false equating is what Sartre calls "bad faith," trying to make an object out of one's self (or another's self).
It is a way in which we lie to ourselves; a Buddhist would say that we are being attached to our thoughts and conciousness.
Sartre, though, provided very little of a method to transcend the tendency to bad faith, whereas the Buddha did.
posted on 05.26.2005 9:09 AM10
Mumon,
Of course the table changes constantly. It might not appear to do so to the unaided senses, but physics teaches that it does.
But I deny that for a thing to exist, it must remain unchanged. Moreover I deny that the subjectivity of a thing, or its dependence upon consciousness, entails that it does not exist. I cut myself. Both the knife and the pain are real. No doubt the pain will subside and yet the knife remain. No doubt if I were not conscious when cut, I could have felt no pain. But neither entails that the pain is not real. Indeed it seems impossible for me to so much as entertain any doubt about its reality. It is quite obviously, quite certainly there.
posted on 05.26.2005 9:26 AM11
Joe, I very, very narrowly disagree with you about "ontology precedes epistemology" *BUT* I think you're so dead-on in the core of this post that you've earned the slippage, there.
This is good thought, and goes to the core of the *common* problem that modernism and postmodernism share: the failure of trust in REVELATION.
Cheers,
PGE
12
If thoughts and sensations are recorded in the brain, and if the soul is connected to brain neurons, and if the soul is immortal, then thoughts and sensations have an eternal "being."
A chair, on the other hand, has an eternal existence only in the mind.
posted on 05.26.2005 10:06 AM13
Mumon,
You posted a reply to Joe's post on your blog, Notes in Samsarra.
I like your pragmatic approach to epistemology, and to religion in general.
The dialectic between faith and doubt in Buddhism is interesting. I'd like to know more about that.
Two questions:
What's Tathagata?
And a technical question, how do you get Blogger to let you use the Read more... label to hide part of your post? I have a blog on Blogger too, and I always wanted to do that.
Thanks!
14
Joe -- interesting post. Maybe you're more "emergent" than you think. I agree with PGEpps that both Cartesian rationalism and much postmodern epistemology flounder because they reject Revelation. To this, though, I would add (or perhaps I would flesh out the term "Revelation" by including) Relationship, Experience and Community. We make knowledge claims about God because He has revealed Himself to us in the person of Christ, His written word, and His creation, and because He has entered into relationship with us, and we have experienced His mighty acts, within the community of the Church. This is kind of like Grenz and Franke's method in Beyond Foundationalism. It's not, as Kevin Keith says above, irrational, it's post- or super-rational -- more than merely rational.
posted on 05.26.2005 10:41 AM15
Franklin Mason:
Of course the table changes constantly. It might not appear to do so to the unaided senses, but physics teaches that it does.
So does experience, actually: left in the right place, under the right circumstances (or basically "long enough") the table does itself change: the color fades, the wood cracks, etc.
For this reason, Buddhists go further than Sartre and maintain that the only permanent nature is impermanence itself.
Moreover I deny that the subjectivity of a thing, or its dependence upon consciousness, entails that it does not exist. I cut myself. Both the knife and the pain are real. No doubt the pain will subside and yet the knife remain. No doubt if I were not conscious when cut, I could have felt no pain. But neither entails that the pain is not real. Indeed it seems impossible for me to so much as entertain any doubt about its reality.
Yet I can create circumstances under which a knife cuts and pain isn't experienced, yet conciousness still exists.
Note what is being said here, though, from the existentialist's perspective: the pain is dependent on conciousness and has no being in itself- but rather is for the subject, whereas the table appears to have being in itself.
As I said before, Buddhists go further and assert interdependent being or "interbeing."
It is not that the pain doesn't exist, but rather, the pain has no essence, whereas, again, to the Sartrian existentialist, the essence of the table is the table itself. (But to a Buddhist the table is empty too.)
Matthew Goggins:
First things, first:
the Blogger tag pair {span class="fullpost"} and {/span} with the "{" replaced with angle brackets will create an expandable post.
The "Read More" link is created after the fact, by hyper-linking to the post after published (so it has to be re-edited).
"Tathagata" literally means "thusness," or "thus come." It is either one other name for the Buddha, or a stage on the way to being a Buddha, depending on your interpretation.
posted on 05.26.2005 11:17 AM16
Kevin Keith,
Wow, what a reply!
You have a commanding grasp of the issues, and a powerful way of getting your points across. I hope my own response to Joe is half as good as yours.
Before I get around to answering Joe, though, I have two bones of contention I'd like to throw your way.
First off, you say,
This post encapsulates for me the oddly self-congratulatory anti-intellectualism of contemporary Christianity.
[...]
... Christians have responded more and more by asserting that they just don't need to be rational or to say things that can be confirmed as true.
Look, there's no need to make blanket statements about Christians and Christianity here. If you're going to come here and unload both barrels at Joe's post, you should at least keep your aim straight. There are many Christians and Christian theologians who would agree with most of what you are saying. You shouldn't assume that all Christians are in sync with Joe.
Secondly, I detect a strong undercurrent of disrespect, if not ouright hostility, in your comments.
I cannot fault you for reacting in such a manner, inasmuch as Joe's philosophizing can sometimes be arrogantly dismissive of those who disagree with him. But if you truly stand for rationality, why do you not stand for tolerance and respect as well?
Joe is a person like yourself and myself. Why not extend the same courtesies to him and his beliefs that you would like extended to yours?
And don't tell me, "Well he started it!" I wouldn't accept that from my five-year-old son, why the heck should I accept it from you!
Moreover, Joe is our host, and a very good host he is, too. You might not like everything he says, but the least you could do is show some gracious acknowledgement that we wouldn't be discussing these things in the first place without Joe's hard work on the blog.
But thanks again for writing such a great comment. I couldn't have said what you said nearly as well as you did.
Mumon,
Thanks for your answers.
I am eager to try the spanclass=fullpost thing. It will be very helpful for my blogging.
I also look forward to perusing Notes in Samsarra again.
Cheers!
posted on 05.26.2005 11:40 AM17
Joe,
You wrote, "And you can’t start with reason without it being founded in some ontological being."
If you mean that you can't start with reason without being an existent being who reasons, you are right. Existence is a logical prerequisite for thought. That is not the same as saying that ontology is a prerequisite for epistemology.
How do you know that starting with Christ gives you knowledge at all? That, I think, is what Descartes would say.
Cheers
posted on 05.26.2005 1:46 PM18
Joe,
I understand that in (at least) one sense ontology precedes epistemology, for what exists does not DEPEND on our knowing of its existence in any way. However, despite the NECESSITY of ontology, we must apprehend truth subjectively. We have to have a means of knowing, and a sound epistemology is necessary for us to correctly apprehend the Truth That Is, whether we know it or not.
So, on the one hand I completely understand that we must ACKNOWLEDGE (for humility's sake, if nothing else) that Ontology precedes Epistemology in the objective realm, it seems to me that without a sound epistemic system, the Truth is unknowable.
Did that make any sense at all? :-)
RobbL
posted on 05.26.2005 2:16 PM19
Joe,
Thanks again for another thoughtful and provocative post.
You write,
[Christian epistemologists] have failed to cut away the root of Descartes' error: the faith in doubt.
Nice phrase that, "faith in doubt". Did you coin it yourself? [Please know that I am not being sarcastic; I really do like your phrase.]
You continue,
Because it appears to be the opposite of certitude, doubt is often perceived to be a form of intellectual humility.
Comment: doubt is the opposite of certitude. More on that later.
You continue,
Some even go so far as to claim that doubt can be virtuous.
Of course doubt can be virtuous! How could it be otherwise: if someone is told something false, or pernicious, then one has the right and the duty to doubt it.
Since the truth of a proposition is not always readily apparent, it is possible that a person will end up doubting something which is true. But if someone doubts the truth because he is seeking the truth and hasn't figured it out yet, then doubting the truth is also virtuous.
You continue,
But nothing could be further from the truth! To doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known.
Joe, like it or not, every adult is the supreme judge of what he considers to be knowable or unknowable. There is no way around this.
Even an orthodox Christian, who believes that God is the source of knowledge, must decide for himself that God is the source of knowledge.
You continue,
In rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty, they are making a similar mistake as Descartes.
"A questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty" is not doubt. Doubt is merely uncertainty. If one is unsure of something, then one has doubt about it.
What you are talking about it "skepticism".
Now the word skepticism can refer to three different things: an attitude in reaction to something, a doctrine, or a method.
In the first sense, skepticism is the same as doubt. You hear a proposition, and if you are uncertain about it, then you have doubt about it or you have skepticism towards it.
In the second sense, skepticism is not the same as doubt. It is a doctrine that asserts that knowledge is unattainable. It can refer to knowledge in general, or to knowledge in a specific field. For example, agnosticism is skepticism in regards to theology.
In this second sense, then, skepticism is akin to doubt, and uses doubt. But as you point out, it is definitely not doubt itself, for it makes a definitive assertion about the nature of things.
In the third sense, skepticism is a special kind of doubt. It is a method of inquiry, a tool for examining and testing hypotheses. Skepticism as a method, when applied to philosophy, is called the Socratic method. When applied to the physical world, it is called the scientific method.
So your mistake, Joe, is to conflate skepticism in the first sense (doubt), which is something everyone experiences every day, with skepticism in the second sense, which is a relatively narrow philosophical stance. I am certain that this is a dubious error on your part.
You continue,
The change in epistemic stance merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name.
The idol of reason -- doh!! I didn't know that committing myself to rationality was idolatrous. What exactly do you mean by this Joe? That it is blasphemous to doubt the existence of God?
Look, God exists or God does not exist. If a person is not sure, or only 99% sure, that God exists, then by definition that person has doubt about the existence of God. Joe, there is nothing wrong with that -- nothing. That person is not making an idol out of reason, he is not making himself the supreme judge of knowledge for the universe. He is just unsure.
He may be a little unsure, he may be a lot unsure, but it doesn't make any difference. He could even be sure that God doesn't exist, or he could be sure that no one knows for sure. That doesn't matter either.
It's just an opinion, a belief. It's not sinful or unsinful, it's just the way it is.
The Catholic Church used to think that theological beliefs would affect the status of a person's soul in the afterlife. They don't think that anymore, because they figured out it's not true.
Maybe it's none of my business that you believe that unbelievers are idolators of the truth, and are risking eternal damnation. If you weren't a proselytiser, I'd likely be inclined to think that it's none of my business.
But if you're going to go around telling people that if they honestly inquire after the truth, and make a good faith effort to explore their doubts, that they are "epistemic nihilists" or "truth idolators", then I am going to cry foul.
Foul!
I don't doubt that you have good intentions. But whatever the reason is that compels you to search for epistemological error in the psyches of others, I think you might want to look at it and think about whether there might be more important things to worry about.
Good luck, and thanks again.
posted on 05.26.2005 2:26 PM20
It's been a while since I've looked at Descartes, but Joe's argument roughly tracks Descartes's: while the cogito establishes the self, the following meditation more-or-less abandons or brackets that point and proceeds to establishing the existence of God.
In other words, the point about the cogito is pretty much left out to dry.
posted on 05.26.2005 3:56 PM21
That leaves us with a pretty small bag of indubitable truths, most of them clever logical assertions about thinking itself ("I know that I know"), more appropriate to the lyrics of old Rush albums than to any practical purpose we have for wanting to know things.
Best sentence ever.
posted on 05.26.2005 3:58 PM22
Joe Carter replies: No, some – perhaps most – knowledge comes from outside of us, through our senses.
That's not knowledge. That's data. Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom.
We only acquire data with our senses. I can build machines out of toothpicks and glue that have senses. Simple machines can receive and transmit data. They can even be made to process information. Making a machine that can build knowledge (much less a machine that possesses wisdom) is a much more difficult problem. You should think about it more before you spout casual propositions like the one above.
Epistemology, after all, does exist. But it has to be founded on something other than itself. Where does reason come from and why should we consider it reliable? We must have a foundation (epistemically, I’m a foundationlist, just not of the Descartes variety) before we can even begin to reason.
I can build simple machines that can reason, but I can't build an artificial personality. This is why I'm not at all convinced that reasoning requires thinking persons to do it. I know enough math to know where the foundations of reasoning can be found. Here is a free clue. The beginning of reasoning is the simple injuctive: "draw a distinction." It's turtles all the way down from there.
And my secondary questions seems unanswered. "...what can we know about the distinction between these two categories of knowledge [internally and externally sourced]? And how can we know it? What do we find we know about it?
You drew the distinction. Let's see you defend it.
posted on 05.26.2005 5:36 PM23
So: Rene Descartes is sitting at an outdoor cafe in Paris when the waiter approaches him and asks, "Would you care for another glass of wine, Monsieur Descartes?"
The philosopher replied, "I think not."
And he disappeared.
posted on 05.26.2005 8:32 PM24
A thought, by its fleeting, subjective nature, has no "being" and certainly does not exist apart from the conciousness that thinks it.
A thought is measurable as electro-chemical activity within your brain. It is an object with physical properties.
posted on 05.26.2005 11:11 PM25
"Style is the deference that action pays to uncertainty." I believe Openheimer said that; anyway, there's something to it. And by that standard I would say that Joe shows a great deal of style, whether he admits it or not. I do not know whether God exists or not. Sometimes I hope and pray that he does; other times I fear it. But what I do not doubt, what both logic and the evidence of history sing to me as true, holy, and awful, sacred and beautiful is . . . that capital is the reincarnation of Christ. That I believe, and though I am myself old, ignorant, and blind, groping in the dark, I think I can convince any honest person who is open to it, and the awsome responsibility it entails. Please forgive me if I have offended, for it is not my intention. This is a great site.
posted on 05.27.2005 1:28 AM26
@Matthew Goggins--
You also have to create a class "fullpost" in your styles section of your template. The style should look like
<MainOrArchivePage>
.fullpost { display:hidden }
</MainOrArchivePage>
Check the Blogger Knowledge area of Blogger Help for the details and several other very useful tricks. It's possible to avoid having to manually re-edit the post by putting the "Read More" link in your template, using a Blogger tag. That's how it's done on my blog, anyway.
Cheers,
PGE
27
Patrick,
The patterns of electro-chemical activity in two brains are never precisely the same.
Yet two of us can share precisely the same thought. For instance, we can both think that 2+2=4.
Thus thoughs are not patterns of electro-chemical activity.
Moreover, it's entirely possible with a being whose physiology bears no reseblence to ours can yet think that 2+2=4.
Thus again thoughts are not patterns of electro-chemical activity.
Finally, a pattern is an abstract entity, for it can be found in multiple places at a single time. If we wear the same shirt, its pattern is both the pattern of my shirt and of your shirt. Patterns are not concrete, for anything concrete can only be in a single place at a time. But a thought is not an abstract entity. It is perfectly concrete.
And so once again thoughts are not patterns of electro-chemical activity in the brain.
What are thoughts then? I have no idea.
posted on 05.27.2005 8:39 AM28
"The patterns of electro-chemical activity in two brains are never precisely the same.Yet two of us can share precisely the same thought. For instance, we can both think that 2+2=4.
Thus thoughts are not patterns of electro-chemical activity.
Your premise assumes that the electro-chemical reaction that represents the thought "2+2=4" must be consistently the same in order to be proved as an object.
That is incorrect. You can stick your hand in a pail of water and swirl it around making patterns in the water. Those patterns will be different each time you do this but they still exist as objects, if only fleetingly.
The electro-chemical process for 2+2=4 in even the same brain will be different each time, as the result of different levels of chemicals available in the brain at different times. It is still a measurable object.
I will refer you to an article at the link below from Scientific American on the workings of memory and the brain. It and many others describe how a thought forms.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000519BF-3128-11E8-A28583414B7F0000&sc=I100322
posted on 05.27.2005 9:30 AM29
Patrick,
But if the electro-chemical process "for" (not sure what you mean by that) 2+2=4 is different each time that 2+2=4 is thought, then that process cannot be identical to the thought that 2+2=4. For that thought is the same every time I think it.
posted on 05.27.2005 11:44 AM30
Mumon
On a material level, the table is matter and energy arranged just so - as are your thoughts as a reaction to the sensory input of applying our five senses to the table. And really all of both can be reduced to energy.
BR
A chair, on the other hand, has an eternal existence only in the mind.No, matter is neither created nor destroyed. It, like us, will exist eternally in a different form. posted on 05.27.2005 1:14 PM
31
Joe wrote: I don’t deny doubt anymore than I deny the reality of sin. My point, though, is that doubt (like sin) is a form of idolatry. It puts our own reason as the judge of God’s very Being.
I think it's useful to distinquish between doubting God, doubting the efficacy of your reason, and doubting if you locked the car.
posted on 05.28.2005 6:08 PM32
JOE: You say "As a Christian, my foundation for epistemology is not my ability to reason (which cannot be a foundation for itself) but something outside my own being – Christ. No matter how hard we try, we simply don’t have the ability to start from ourselves and form an adequate foundation for reasoning."
I hear such reasoning often from Christians (this is classic reformed epistemology), and it always strikes me as literally meaningless. Perhaps you could clarify. What does it actually MEAN to have "Christ as one's foundation?" More importantly, HOW did you arrive at this belief w/o rational processes of the sort you maintain are inadequate to produce certitude???? It seems to me that you are engaging in an anti-intellectual maneuver here; "Human beings are incapable of religiously certain knowledge, so let's just believe (fill in the blank, usually "whatever I was taught in Sunday school and cannot bring myself to discard.) No?
Thanks for a great blog.
steve baughman
33
More importantly, HOW did you arrive at this belief w/o rational processes of the sort you maintain are inadequate to produce certitude????I arrived at it in an instant wo any rational thought at all. There were a whole procession (looking back in retrospect) of events, incidents, words, people that moved me to the point where, in response to a challenge, I simply (and literally) dropped to my knees weeping - and professed that I was not capable of running my life and that He would have to. But that morning, getting out of bed - I was no more convinced of God (although I had a lot more doubt that He didn't exist) than any other morning.
And after my pride, and belief in my own ability to judge the truth of God, was broken - I said my heart had written a check my head could not cash.
I scratch it up to my christian wife of 7 years putting me before God every day in prayer for those 7 years; and asking Him to soften my heart. I figured she saved my life.
Trying it back to my old Marxism - I would say a series of small quanitative steps led to a qualitative leap.
posted on 05.28.2005 10:13 PM34
so let's just believe (fill in the blank, usually "whatever I was taught in Sunday school and cannot bring myself to discard.) No?No - I was 25 years past discarding all that I had learned in Sunday school (and quite a bit more) posted on 05.29.2005 12:08 AM
35
One last point on my wife's behavior for those 7 years (lest we see the "nagged for 7 years and finally gave in strawman"):
1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior - 1 Peter 3:1-2My wife in the 7 years mentioned God once: when our daughter was born 5 years in she said she wanted her to be raised christian. Other than that, we never even discussed my agnosticism or her christianity. Neither of us had a desire to win the other by words. She just sicced God on me.
Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, 2 saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. 3 "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, `Give me legal protection from my opponent.' 4 "For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, `Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.' " 6 And the R760 Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; 7 now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay R763 long over them? 8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" -- Luke 18:1-8I am convinced my wife "wore God out" praying for me - because I had been a fairly nasty enemy of God for a while.
Keep in mind my wife knew of neither of these scriptures; nor had any pastoral/christian advice. She was a fallen away Catholic - who did not attend church during these 7 years; and did not read the Bible. And continued to pray for me in faith every day.
posted on 05.29.2005 12:41 PM36
JHCFleetguy says: "I scratch it up to my christian wife of 7 years putting me before God every day in prayer for those 7 years; and asking Him to soften my heart. I figured she saved my life."
THAT, sir, is an act of human interpretation of data. Plain and simple. Surely you recognize that one could find purely materialist interpretations of that same dats. I trust also that you recognize that there is a vast and growing body of neuro-psychological literature that can explain your experience in physicalist terms, and do so quite convincingly. Undoubtedly you are also aware that people from other religious traditions have identical experiences as yours.
We can disagree about the validity of your conclusion, but it cannot be disputed that you engaged in a rational process of interpreting the data to reach your conclusion. To claim that your beliefs came from without is simply going vastly beyond the evidence.
This is not, by the way, a pot shot at your religious views, which you clearly hold dear and which nurture you. But I think it's important for all to think straight and not assume that OUR religious experiences are different from those of other traditions.
Respectfully,
Steve Baughman
.
posted on 05.29.2005 9:06 PM37
Steve,
I absolutely DO NOT believe that others wouldn't experience what I experienced. I think it is fairly obvious from much I post that I think God is working in ALL people's lives to show His presence - not just christians.
All interpretations of data are "human interpretations of data" - even the most empirical and scientific. So, I do not feel foolish that it was a human interpretation of data.
I could outline a rational process, in hindsight at least, in this sense of the word:
3. in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudiceBut it would include God, and since God is not material or physical, it wouldn't be a scientific or physicalist process. God will not ever be found under a microscope.
My point was the decision for Christ was not a "rational" process:
1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice- I had certitude prior to sorting out the process; and prior to sorting out a supporting philosophy and theology i.e. "cashing the check" so to speak. I will tell you that no sensible thinking went into the process that day.
Understand I know I can only state this, from my own experience. I know that if you have no similiar type of experience to relate it to - you have no way to rationally except it [Other than your very kind agreement that I am a heartfelt believer in what happened]. I do not expect anyone to accept the existance of God based on my metaphysical experience.
Only when I touch a resonant note in someone else's experience does mine help. Of course, you may have the resonating experience 5, 10, or 20 years from now. Who knows. (Well, God does)
posted on 05.29.2005 10:07 PM38
"My point was the decision for Christ was not a "rational" process:
1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
- I had certitude prior to sorting out the process; . . ."
And my point is WHY are you so certain about your "certitude?" On what basis do you view your conclusion as certain? Personally I suspect that you have gone way beyond your epistemic rights in feeling so sure that your experience was a supernatural one.
Respectfully I must also say that telling someone that they simply have not had the experience you have had and are therefore unable to understand fully, is not convincing argument. I've had Moonies and Mormons say that to me also. I consider it the last sanctuary of one who is desperately lacking evidence for their beliefs.
Please advise. I look forward to your response and thanks for the discussion.
steve baughman
posted on 05.29.2005 11:34 PM39
Steve,
And my point is WHY are you so certain about your "certitude?" On what basis do you view your conclusion as certain? Personally I suspect that you have gone way beyond your epistemic rights in feeling so sure that your experience was a supernatural one.Have you never just "known" something - but not been sure how you knew; what information you recieved to make you sure; and couldn't explain to anyone why you were sure? Now, of course as you go ahead and trace back the logic - you may find the thread (maybe not). And the itch if you do not makes you "fill in the blanks" later.
I knew. A later "spiritural gifts" inventory said I was gifted with faith (probably necessary because I would never have come to God in rational discussion - I was too well armed for that.)
Respectfully I must also say that telling someone that they simply have not had the experience you have had and are therefore unable to understand fully, is not convincing argumentNow, you have heard the "you cannot know what it is like to be a victim of ______ (racism, sexism, homophobia, pregnancy, chronic pain, alcoholism, etc) unless you experience it" and you probably did not make that argument then [But I agree with you, it is frustrating and you suspect untrue - shouldn't we be able to empathize?]. But I didn't exactly say that anyway.
I said I do not expect someone without a resonating experience to believe me; and accept the truth of my metaphysical experience for them. When I was getting my education degree, one of the tenets is that we attach new knowledge to old knowledge to organize it. If the student doesn't have old knowledge to attach to - it makes learning something new harder.
I consider it the last sanctuary of one who is desperately lacking evidence for their beliefs.I think looking at my posts that in the ensuing 10 years I have gained the ability to survive a discussion with myself 11 years ago. I hardly lack evidence for my beliefs now. But, I do not believe it will ever be possible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God by rational, logical discussion.
A basic tenet of evangelism is that God changes people, not the evangelist. I can tell you who I was, what was wrong with that, how I found God, and that after I was saved this is what God did for me. But only God can open your heart and mind to that message and give you enough of a glimpse of Him that you will believe me. I can now run that story out for you now: I can trace all the reasons I did not believe, and all the individual items (or most of them) that erased those reasons. My point here was to point out that the "moment of decision" (at least for me) had nothing to do with logic or reason - that was all fill in the blanks later.
That is how it worked for me in practice. I would never have been talked into God; others I have talked to have been logically convinced.
40
Steve,
I hear such reasoning often from Christians (this is classic reformed epistemology), and it always strikes me as literally meaningless.
I think that would make a good topic for a future post. I’ll try to tackle that this week.
Perhaps you could clarify. What does it actually MEAN to have "Christ as one's foundation?"
I’ll give a fuller explanation in a forthcoming post, but for now I’ll say that, roughly speaking, it means that we first have to acknowledge what we are in an ontological sense (we are sometimes knowing Beings created by an all-knowing God) before we can fully understand how we can know.
More importantly, HOW did you arrive at this belief w/o rational processes of the sort you maintain are inadequate to produce certitude????
Just because they are inadequate to produce certitude does not mean that they are completely inadequate for all tasks. It's similar to language. I may not possess the verbal skills necessary to fully describe God’s character but that does not mean that linguistics is completely usesless.
It seems to me that you are engaging in an anti-intellectual maneuver here; "Human beings are incapable of religiously certain knowledge, so let's just believe (fill in the blank, usually "whatever I was taught in Sunday school and cannot bring myself to discard.) No?
I certainly hope not. I’m not a fideist myself and have little respect for such anti-intellectualism. I think that religious knowledge can be justified, as I hope to be able to explain (assuming I possess the verbal skills).