Restated: "Is reason exhaustive in knowing God?"
My answer is NO. I think that we know God other ways too. And it is normative to do so.

Restated: "Is reason absolutely compelling for gaining knowledge of God?
My answer is NO. The direction of the heart is vital.

Restated: "Is reason vital in knowing God?
My answer is Yes. And I think that parallels can be drawn between the question of reason and knowledge of God and another question: the question of the natural world and knowledge of God.

quote:

---

Why do you use imaginary numbers as an example? They're not "contradictory" or impossible, the term "irrational" is a technical one. Also, your comment about irrational numbers doesn't seem to be right! There are many graphs involving a infinite component that intersect a finite function without involving irrational numbers.

---

quote:

---

an equation that actually uses INFINITY.
...
Another example: When you're dealing with an infinite number of books and you get rid of half your books...you'd still have an infinite number of books! And how many pages are there in a library with an infinite number of books? An infinite number, (because both are infinite) even though we would say there's "more" pages than books.
Infinity defies human logic. And that's what I was getting at.

---

quote:

---

No, actually the paradox is that photons sometimes act like particles, not waves. They don't appear to be both at the same time, just in some circumstances they behave like one, and sometimes like the other. Same problem with eletrons and negatrons!

*most* the time they're particles, obeying particle laws and maths, but sometimes (quantum tunneling, all sorts) they behave like waves. They're never both at the same time, they're mutually exlcusive states, they appear to (under strictly consistent circumstances) behave like one -or- the other.

---

Sorry this is so off topic, but just to clear this up I went to http://physlink.com/

I got this:

quote:

---

Question

Which makes more sense: that photons [and other quantum objects] are neither waves nor particles or that they both waves and particles?


Answer

I found the following statement in "The Feynmann Lectures in Physics", Volume 1, page 2-7: "...things which we used to consider as waves also behave like particles, and particles behave like waves; in fact, everything behaves the same way. There is no distinction between a particle and a wave. So, quantum mechanics unifies the idea of the field and its waves, and the particles, all into one." Feynmann goes on to explain that the frequency of the field (e.g., light; PZ) and the ability of the equipment we use to measure the frequency of the field determine whether the field looks to us like a particle or a wave. Answered by: Philip Zell, Ph.D. Physics, ACT, Inc.

---

This demonstrates that it is our observation methods (our perception) that determine whether a photon appears to be a particle or wave....the hypothesis is that they exist as BOTH. This is a massively confusing point!

Vexen said regarding two points on a graph:

quote:

---

It was contradictory because you said a "2D" circle, such co-orindates would have made it a line. If it wasn't 2D, then there was no contradiction in 2D in the first place.

---

I think you missed my point. The point was demonstrating EXACTLY that...that when we introduce extra dimensions there is no contradiction. God exists in a dimension outside our dimension, so what will "fail" in the logic of our dimensions, does not in an extra dimension.

Vexen said:

quote:

---

Not in the case of wave/particle dualism... unless Jesus is God one minute, and then Man the next, but not at the same time. Imagine Jesus, half way through his ascension, suddenly recerting to particle laws... and gravity laws. Nah, he was both, -all- the time!

---

Again, you misundertood my point. I'm saying that we can only OBSERVE God, in God's triunity, as EITHER Spirit, Father, or Son, due to our limited observation abilities as finite beings. Likewise, WE do not observe Jesus' nature as human and divine simultaneously. Like the photon, we can only observe one aspect at a time although they exist simultaneously together.

Vexen said:

quote:

---

There is different way of putting it... "God can do whatever he wants and doesn't have to obey logic"... if this is the case, I can say that there is a Vexen Realm of existence. That everything I say is true, and right, and anyone who disagrees is simply living in a limited existence and can't see the whole truth.

I think such things _prevent_ all knowledge about anything at all, _especially_ things that seems to exist solely out of this reality... with this type of restriction, God could merely be a demon, a jinn, one of Scientologies' aliens, a powerful spirit or who knows what, simply deceiving us.

It places such limits on -any- logic, we might as well just abandom any attempts to understand such beings, and far worse, we should fear them in case they're deceiving us with imagery of "goodness" for their own end.

REASON HAS to be the foremost understanding, otherwise -faith- is stupidity, potentially leading to doom, even though it -feels- right, because we'd be forced to admit a strong being in one of these illogical or supra rational realms could simply control all of our emotions. It seems far too counterproductive to place God in such terms of illogical, unreachable demonology.

I think!

---

I hear you and sympathize. Your instincts are like that of the great philosopher, Descartes.

The crisis of pure reason is a philosophical issue that was addressed in the 18th and 19th century. Descartes was the last philosopher that attempted to undertake a true rationalist model. His solution was, "I think therefore I am" as his basis for knowledge. In this same treatise he considered the same problem you pose: the fact that he could be "being decieved by a demon" or any other powerful being. Ultimately, Descartes' attempt to form a faith through PURE reason and logic became clearly deficient and thus, critics of Descartes, like Hume, finally planted the seeds that led to the destruction of pure rationalistic philosophical models that dominated modernism. These later philosophers realized the necessity of incorporating experience in addition to reason.

The epistemology I go with on this is Alvin Platinga's who shows that our experiences are as valid as any other form of "knowing," including empirical evidence or logical deduction.

Unfortunately, ever since the 18th century humans are forced to live in an uncertain world! A simple Newtonian universe simply doesn't exist.

I can't even prove, by reason alone, that You or I exist. How much more so when it comes to the nature of a Divine Being?

~Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 01/22/2002 05:21:16 AM

quote:

---

Again, you misundertood my point. I'm saying that we can only OBSERVE God, in God's triunity, as EITHER Spirit, Father, or Son, due to our limited observation abilities as finite beings.

---

quote:

---

One: would you comment on what I had written?

Two: Um, how did you make that link (Antinomy post) show up????

---

1. Check the Antimony thread for my response.

2. 1) Go to the webpage with the actual post you want to note.
2) Go to the address line of your particular browser and highlight
it all.
3) Right click and hit "Copy"
4) When typing the sentence use the following code
The material in parentheses is inserted material:

^a href="(pasted URL)"^ (hyperlink text) ^/a^

NOTE: Substitute the < > characters for ^ above. I just did that so the html function wouldn't enable.

EX. ^a href="http://www.vibe.com"^Go here^/a^

becomes...

Go here


5) You will have a link.


There you go.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

DEFINITION ONE OF: Is REASON sufficient for knowing God?


Restated: "Is reason exhaustive in knowing God?"
My answer is NO. I think that we know God other ways too. And it is normative to do so.

DEFINITION TWO OF: IS REASON sufficient for knowing God?


Restated: "Is reason absolutely compelling for gaining knowledge of God?
My answer is NO. The direction of the heart is vital.

DEFINITION THREE OF: Is REASON sufficient for knowing God?


Restated: "Is reason vital in knowing God?
My answer is Yes. And I think that parallels can be drawn between the question of reason and knowledge of God and another question: the question of the natural world and knowledge of God.

---

Empiress and POW are essentially saying that reason is necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, to "know" God. Without acknowledging the NON-rational reality of the Divine, one cannot say that one has a COMPREHENSIVE theology, in the true sense of the word. One only has a philosophical system using certain assumptions from Scripture to explain his/her world. Little more. Unfortunately, this is what theology (particularly in contemporary academic circles) has largely become. And it because some of the ideas represented on this board LOOK like what I've just described, Empiress wanted to say something about it. (I think POW has, too)


Hopefully, I'm somewhat accurate on the above. I can see what problems that Empiress and POW would have with the type of "theology" that I've described. It robs the Faith of something essential and turns it into more of a logical deduction to acknowledge than a dynamic reality to be EXPERIENCED. So, I applaud her/their critiques in this regard.



H O W E V E R...



I have some issues here. As I said before, when it comes to theological reflection, I am more logician than mystic. (and I think Doc is the same way I think this is for obvious reasons that deal with the very nature of mysticism. But this is not to say that I don't recognize our epistemological limitations NOR that I'm Cartesian in my thinking process. I agree with some of the valid critiques that postmodernism has made of "modern" thought. Nor is this to say that I don't encorporate the non-rational into my TOTAL theological perspective or that I don't have a worshipful attitude about the theological process. So why is this what many people end up alluding? It almost seems that people make some type of direct relationship between the devotional aura and EMBRACE of "mystery" within a theology...and it's piety or its truly THEOLOGICAL nature. I think that this is unfair. It is possible for a theologian to exhibit a strenuous logic and still acknowledge what you are talking about.


Me, for example. Anyone who reads my stuff can easily see that I am ALL about rationality. Particularly the integrity of a view. I often demand that people be completely CONSISTENT within their own perspectives. I hold to all four Whitehead's criteria of rationality, but I place a decent premium on INNER CONSISTENCY. This is where I believe that many theologies fall (including the Doc's warfare worldview) It's not that the ideas are riddled with inconsistencies. It's that people often do not draw out ALL the implications of their thought. They take just enough of their theologies to give them their cash value...but don't take ENOUGH that proves to be a liability. Anyways, when you go deep into the implications like this, the discussion does seem to take an "undevotional" tone and does seem to take a tone of "knowledge" that gives the sense that epistemological humility is not being employed. But this is to mistake the desire for consistency within someone's theology for denigrating the ultimately mysterious nature of God! Again, unfair. I CANNOT know God sufficiently by logic...BUT I CAN SURE KNOW A PERSON'S THEOLOGY IF THEY GIVE ME ENOUGH INFORMATION! And THAT I can penetrate all to heck. (and I will!) Because people's theologies are often filled with unspoken assumptions, I make it a point to get to them. Because people's theologies are often able to be clearly delineated and described, they are able to be dissected and analyzed with as much rigor as we can muster. This is what I think many people take as theological arrogance when it's the farthest from it. It's the tentative search for truth that demands rigor, honesty, and challenge. See what I'm saying?

Moreover, it should not be assumed out of hand that use of strenuous logical, rational thought in the form of analogies or what have you imply reductionism or theological arrogance. This gets said, in so many words, often. Again, just not true.

In short, what I want to say is this:

One can hold to a primarily Western view of "rationality", be logically exhaustive, challenge all types of assumption...and STILL be a person who gives due attention the mysterious nature of God and the reality of the NON-rational! Theological arrogance is an more of an ATTITUDE than anything else.

Nuff said, right?

Holla,


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

In short, what I want to say is this:

One can hold to a primarily Western view of "rationality", be logically exhaustive, challenge all types of assumption...and STILL be a person who gives due attention the mysterious nature of God and the reality of the NON-rational! Theological arrogance is an more of an ATTITUDE than anything else.

---

quote:

---

It is possible for a theologian to exhibit a strenuous logic and still acknowledge what you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

You are of course correct that presuppositions play a major role in determining whether a paradox is a paradox or a contradiction. My point about the "law of non-contradiction" applies, however, for it means that anyone whose intent is to speak meaningfully must be able to DEFINE the terms of their assertions in ways that are NOT mutually canceling. If they can do that, then they MAY have a plausible paradox. We then must decide whether their definitions are plausible or not. If they cannot do this, however, they are asserting nothing that can be assented to.

---

I hear ya. The problem as I see it then becomes with making UP definitions. There are very few words that are such that COMPLETE univocity is possible. Somehow, people can always come up with other "viable" ways to define a word that gets around problems. So, one person could look at what you are saying and say "Hey, some of your assertions are mutually exclusive. You have a contradiction here"...the other person can reply "I'm working under different presuppositions than you are, so my assertions are NOT mutually exclusive, per se" With this type of behavior, literally MOST or ALL contradictions can somewhat be explained about if a person is creative enough.


_____________________________________

Doc:

quote:

---

Empiress: Extra-dimensionality can show that while something may be contradictory in one dimension, by adding another dimension, we remove the contradiction.

Doc: Very good point. But it is encumbant upon the speaker to articulate something coherent about the "extra dimension" that resolves an "apparent contradiction" into a legitimate paradox. To say, for example (my favorite) that "God exhaustively determines our own morally responsible free actions" may be accepted as a paradox, not a contradiction, IF the speaker can articulate some coherent "higher" order that renders the statement non-contradictory. If not, however, we have every reason to assume that it is a meaningless contradiction, not a paradox. (Of course, Meph will point out that I’m assuming free will here means "power to do otherwise." If someone wants to dispute this, we then shift to a discussion of whether or not its coherent to assert that "we are morally responsible for actions about which we could NOT have done otherwise).

---

This makes my point from above. It is possible to go from different suppositions to resolve contradictions. What I find very interesting is that the "higher order" that you are talking about is QUITE SUBJECTIVE...and banks on human intuition. If we think about it, much of your argumentation banks on human intuition. If you look at a lot of the way that you argue you will see stuff like...

"Don't WE feel as if..."

"Doesn't this match what WE experience?

"Don't we just seem to innately KNOW that..."

This is capitalizing off of human intution. HOWEVER, this is problematic. This should be apparent espectially from how much we like to discuss QUANTUM THEORY here. Human intuition is almost COMPLETELY based on Newtonian type physics on a "macrocosmic" level. We don't believe in non-locality and things like that in our sphere of existence. It's COUNTERINTUITIVE to us. But we accept it because we feel that we have good reasons to do so. This reasoning for accepting counterintuition works when you can have empirical verification of findings...but what about when, like in theological matters, many assumptions either CANNOT be so verified...OR there is ample evidence for more than one direction? Is it possible that some Calvinists and determinists accept a COUNTERINTUITIVE position because they feel they have good reasons for doing so? Yep.

_____________________________________


Doc:

quote:

---

: I don’t see how one can know a priorithe limits of logic. Hence, as a methodological point, we should relentlessly think logically until we hit a wall – and even then continue to be relentless. At the very least, we should try to specify WHY the wall is the WALL it is.

---

Couldn't agree more.




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Doc: You know, Vexen, I’m beginning to think I have more in common with you, a professing Satanist, than a lot of believers. And I’m also thinking that you’re a lot closer to Christ than you may think!

---

quote:

---

All in all, I hear the heart in Mephi’s post stronger than I’ve ever heard it—and I’m moved. As I was reading it, I also thought the “mystic” could say the same about the logician: “We’re tired of being labeled psychopaths and liars.”

---

quote:

---

Try having the extra dimension being Communion -- which Met. John Zizioulas calls an ontological state. The state of existence of the Trinity is in the communion of trinitiarin love. WE can't participate in that (ses) except as we are, through the Spirit, IN CHIST, our head. (How Capadocian of me.) Then we can understand/see by experience. "Taste and see that the Lord is good."

---

quote:

---

Empiress: I don't think there's a TOTAL disconnect between reason and language. I do think language fails terribly short however in expressing meaning, especially when it comes to explaining such concepts as the nature of God.

Doc: Ahhh, but notice, lovely Empiress, this position presupposes that you KNOW a good deal about the God who is "beyond" our concepts. How else could you know how far we "fall short"? hmmmmm?

---

quote:

---

"To KNOW a good deal about the God who is "beyond" our concepts" is not a problem unless you make an everywhere applied distinction (total disjunct) between what is human and what is God. For a Panentheist, the disjuct doesn't exist because the divine is in some way present in me. Through means of that reality, I would be able to know him a great deal, yet not exhaustively.

---

*waves* Hello fellow Panentheist! That's essentially what I was going to say in response.

PoW, thanks for the book recommendation...it sounds interesting!