 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Joy | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/4/2006 2:31 AM (GMT -6) |   |
BBBCanada said...
Corey or Meph Man, what sayest thou to the script ure that says:
12 But I will continue to do what I am doing, in order to cut off the opportunity of those who want an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in what they are boasting about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself is disguised as an angel of light. 15 So it is no great thing if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their destiny will be according to their works.
Meph: Brandon:
Even Wolf says in the article that she wants to distance this experience from Christianity, but by that I would assume that she is talking about institutional Christianity. But as you (Meph Man) say, she will need to at some point see this experience in the light of the real Jesus of history. Is it not possible for her to be decieved AWAY from God to "another Gospel?"
Oh, sure, it's possible. That's why religious experiences can be so ambiguous. And religious claims FROM religious experiences.
Sorry for the late response, just saw this now. Here's a response from Plantinga to a similar question (about being deceived by a Cartesian devil.)
"It's logically possible that these other things are so. I don't for a minute think that they are so, and I don't think that the fact that these are logically possible means that we don't know any of these. One question is whether you know these things. And another question is what's your evidence or how do you prove these things. I think you know something when that belief is true and when it's produced in you by your faculties working properly. God has created us with a lot of faculties and I know a perceptual belief is a true proposition when I believe it and it's true and it's produced in me by my faculties working the way they were designed to work. But that doesn't mean I can prove it to some sceptic. That's a whole different question. Knowledge is one thing, being able to prove it to a sceptic is a wholly different thing."
I take this to be emphasizing a distinction between epistemology and ontology. Wolf's beliefs may not actually correspond to reality, but nonetheless she is warranted in believing them, warranted enough to consider it knowledge and adapt her life accordingly.
So I would not agree with Meph's claim that religious experiences are [necessarily] ambiguous, or especially that beliefs formed from them have less warrant than other beliefs. If we are being deceived by a demon, this deception is certainly not limited to properly basic beliefs. We're all in the same boat epistemically speaking; a demon could just as easily deceive us through other means. In fact, I'd suggest that higher-order beliefs are actually more prone to this sort of deception than lower-order beliefs.
What I think Meph wants to say is that these beliefs are ambiguous to the outside observer, the skeptic. Fine. But they're not ambiguous to the subject herself.
Just playing with this... How could Meph know that his belief that "religious experiences can be so ambiguous" is not itself the result of a demonic deception? Practically speaking, it comes down a matter of faith. Post Edited (Corey) : 2/4/2006 2:05:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 3:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
What I think Meph wants to say is that these beliefs are ambiguous to the outside observer, the skeptic. Fine. But they're not ambiguous to the subject herself.
Right.
*********************
Corey:
I take this to be emphasizing a distinction between epistemology and ontology. Wolf's beliefs may not actually correspond to reality, but nonetheless she is warranted in believing them, warranted enough to consider it knowledge and adapt her life accordingly.
Doesn't knowledge include "true belief"? Just because a person considers something to be true doesn't mean that it is, right?
*************************
Corey:
Just playing with this... How could Meph know that his belief that "religious experiences can be so ambiguous" is not itself the result of a demonic deception? Practically speaking, it comes down a matter of faith.
I hear ya.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/4/2006 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Corey:
I take this to be emphasizing a distinction between epistemology and ontology. Wolf's beliefs may not actually correspond to reality, but nonetheless she is warranted in believing them, warranted enough to consider it knowledge and adapt her life accordingly.
Doesn't knowledge include "true belief"? Just because a person considers something to be true doesn't mean that it is, right? Yeah, I was using sloppy wording here. As Plantinga said in that quote, "I think you know something when that belief is true and when it's produced in you by your faculties working properly."
What I was after is that Wolf has no good reason to doubt her experience, and so it is appropriate to begin acting upon them. She ought to proceed as if these beliefs are true until she finds some good reason to doubt them. Immediate appropriation. (Lots of SK themes here.) Post Edited (Corey) : 2/4/2006 9:35:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: emphases mine
What I was after is that Wolf has no good reason to doubt her experience, and so it is appropriate to begin acting upon them. She ought to proceed as if these beliefs are true until she finds some good reason to doubt them. Immediate appropriation. (Lots of SK themes here.)
Totally with ya here! The principle of belief conservation.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
When Wolf had this experience, she was under some sort of hypnosis ("light meditative state). How does this correspond to her "faculties working properly?" I suppose we could ask what it means for her "faculites to be working properly."
In the OT, some prophets would go into ecstatic trances and the like when God's Spirit came upon them, right? Or when a biblical author talks about seeing things while they were "in the Spirit"? What would we say about those?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|