Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/14/2005 9:05 AM (GMT -6)

In his book, "The Abolition of Man," C.S. Lewis said something like "If nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved." Is that a form of foundationalism? And how, if his statement is true, does that statement relate to theology?

wjs

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 5/16/2005 3:01 AM (GMT -6)

sounds like an exam question....

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/16/2005 9:12 AM (GMT -6)

Mark: sounds like an exam question....

Jeff: I'm not exactly sure what the precise definition of foundationalism is. But with respect to human epistemology, I believe we have intuitions or categories of thought with which we "interpret" our experience. Kinda like what Kant said. I suspect this IS a kind of foundationalism, though not in a way where propositions are truly evident without SOME experience. But some propostions are so easily ascertained by our common experience that they seem to be fundamental, when actually they are a bit derived.

But with respect to theology, I'm wondering if there is something to account for how believers would come to believe that there is are authoritative writings. I remember believing that "the Bible is true" long before I converted to Christianity. So at this point, I'm thinking my belief in a canon is rooted in my own normal epistemological thinking. Kinda like since there are books about everything else, it makes sense there would be a book about God's will. But that would only make sense in a very bookish culture. So what other theories are there to explain why believers come to accept authoritative writings? Or are there any?

wjs

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 5/16/2005 4:40 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...
Mark: sounds like an exam question....

Jeff: I'm not exactly sure what the precise definition of foundationalism is. But with respect to human epistemology, I believe we have intuitions or categories of thought with which we "interpret" our experience. Kinda like what Kant said. I suspect this IS a kind of foundationalism, though not in a way where propositions are truly evident without SOME experience. But some propostions are so easily ascertained by our common experience that they seem to be fundamental, when actually they are a bit derived.

jefscott said...

But with respect to theology, I'm wondering if there is something to account for how believers would come to believe that there is are authoritative writings. I remember believing that "the Bible is true" long before I converted to Christianity. So at this point, I'm thinking my belief in a canon is rooted in my own normal epistemological thinking. Kinda like since there are books about everything else, it makes sense there would be a book about God's will. But that would only make sense in a very bookish culture. So what other theories are there to explain why believers come to accept authoritative writings? Or are there any?

Hmm. Belief in the Bible I think is something that's pretty normative for our culture and I think that trust in it probably comes with that - to a large degree we accept the traditions which we know as authoratative. Other theories? Well if we were to be all rational about it then I think we would start with Jesus' affirmations of the old testament writings and work our way from that anchor-point to a more developed theoloy of scripture. We do need some kind of intuition that this is the sort of thing that God would do apart from that I think and maybe that's what comes from the people around us.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/16/2005 5:05 PM (GMT -6)

Yeah, Mark, I was thinking a bit more about this today. If we believe that Christ is Lord, and Lordship implies authority, it would seem inevitable that there must be some source of revelation of what it is we are to do. Then the bit you talked about would follow naturally in an inductive sense. In that case, I guess it is rooted in a kind of "foundationalism" - in that common sense that is derived from our categories of thought and experience. That same common sense and common experience that brings us to such concepts as "lord," etc.

wjs

Grahaminator
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 70

Posted 5/17/2005 4:53 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott,

I am pretty sure that C.S. Lewis was not a Kantian. He was a Realist. Realists are much more empirically oriented than followers of Kant. Realists (depending on the kind of Realist) also hold that concepts are formed by real things. My notion of time and contingency are derived from reality. On the Realists view, these concepts are not innate. Realists often hold that Kant was wrong in overemphasizing the minds active role in knowing. For the realist, knowledge is of things. I know things in themselves, not merely my concept of things.

Matt

Man is the feeblest reed in existence, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need that the universe be armed for his destruction; a noxious vapour, a drop of water is enough to cause his death. But though the universe were to destroy him, man would be more noble than his destroyer. -Pascal

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/17/2005 6:59 PM (GMT -6)

Matt, I think intuitions of time and space are occasioned by experience. I don't think we are conscious of concepts of time and space independent of experience. But I don't think we "know" about time, space, causality or finality by the senses. They seem like intuitions that are occasioned by our experience, to me.

Regardless, each view entails a kind of foundationalism, wouldn't you think?

wjs

Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/17/2005 10:11:06 PM (GMT-5)

Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!

Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690

Posted 5/19/2005 1:20 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Jefscott, I do agree that it seems quite apparent that we're born with a set of a priori mechanisms to allow us to interact with an make sense of the world. So I'd agree with what you wrote in your second post. about how we determine authority originally? Hmmm... good question. I don't think there's a "one size fits all" for that.

I'll just brainstorm some possible reasons. 1. We have an internal need for safety, security & stability. 2. Determining the level of reliability of something. 3. It seems we have some kind of "pecking order" tendency ... so perhaps we have some innate tendency to find out who is "top dog" (this is still me brainstorming). After coming to that conclusion of who is the "authoritator", then we find out what would be the authoritator's directives... thus having the "authoritative" writings (ie Bible). 4. Another may be "general consensus" such as with the Constitution to accept something that is foundational to the grounding of a current establishment.

I dunno. This is a good question. Definitely food for thought for me.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/19/2005 8:09 AM (GMT -6)

VFG, those are some good points you bring up. Interestingly, all those factors you mentioned seem to vary in importance depending on one's personality and intellectual style. I work for a major corporation which has provided us with social style training and other computer-based training which basically claim that psychologists have categorized these styles into about 4 basic groups. What is important, though, is that these courses all emphasize that ALL the styles have merit in their strength. The weakness of each style (intellectual or social) has to do with the fact that each person uses their strength in all circumstances and conditions, when in fact, there are times where the OTHER styles may be important, also, or even MORE important, depending on the circumstance. In other words, we are not balanced. We tend to think our strength is THE most important quality, unless we have been raised well with an appreciation for all strengths and their appropriate occasions.

Clearly, human diversity is greater than 4 basic styles. But even these show the kinds of ways that we are, in a sense, wired to feel and think somewhat differently than others. And it shows how we can so easily miscommunicate and hurt others, unintentionally.

So, in short, I still think C.S.Lewis was right. Nevertheless, it can be difficult coming to a consensus even on "obvious" things because of our unbalanced approach. We're all growing into the bigger picture all the time. And part of that means growing into appreciation of the "obvious" things that we, in our straying from intellectual honesty (prior to conversion), may have been biased against because of our own unique character flaws. It's really not that hard to think of cases where people seem absolutely convinced of things that seem obviously false to others. So the fact that an "obvious" truth is unknown by someone doesn't imply that it is not actually obvious. It probably just means that one's weakness has turned to hardness and that THE LIGHT is necessary to heal that vision. For example, Christ said the Pharisees "strained at a nat and swallowed a camel." What was really obvious, the Pharisees, on account of their hardness, could not see.

wjs

Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/19/2005 8:20:26 AM (GMT-5)

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 5/19/2005 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...
In his book, "The Abolition of Man," C.S. Lewis said something like "If nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved." Is that a form of foundationalism? And how, if his statement is true, does that statement relate to theology?

There is always some form of foundationalism in human knowing. However, there is a "soft" foundationalism and a "hard" foundationalism. In a very general sense we all reason from the known to the unknown. For example we know from the gospel accounts that Jesus had a high view of OT scripture, so we reason that he believed in some kind of authoritative role and trustworthiness of those ancient documents.

However, in an Enlightenment sense there is a foundationalism that works as a method of epistemology in that it seeks a sure foundation on which an edifice of knowledge can be constructed. Such a foundation must be unassailable and incontestable for if it is shaken the edifice will fall. Examples of foundationalism are:

"Reason is my ultimate authority because it is reasonable to make it so."

"Logical is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so."

"Human experience is my ultimate authority because human experience has never discovered anything else outside of itself.

"Biblical authority is my ultimate authority because it is biblical to do so.

The problem that postmodern thinkers point out is that all these must be established by circular reasoning and exclusive of other tributaries of knowledge.

Read my blog at <a href="http://ochuk.gizzar.com" target="_blank">ochuk.gizzar.com</a>

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/19/2005 11:31 AM (GMT -6)

Ochuk, I would say I hold to "soft" foundationalism. Our intuitions of time, space, being, relation, causality, and "finality" are occasioned by experience and explain why we have a great deal of shared "knowledge." On the other hand, virtually all significant "knowledge" is in some way rooted in induction, not just deduction. Hence, a certain degree of interpretation is inevitable.

And it is because of this interpretative nature of knowledge that foundationalism can not be rooted in a mere proposition. I don't think humans are born with fundamental propositions in their mind. Propositions are, themselves, products of our intuitions applied to our experience.

wjs

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:17 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual