 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/17/2004 1:27 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hello,
As you have probably guessed, I have tons of questions about truth, knowledge, God, history and Christianity. What I want to do is start with the concepts of truth and knowledge. Christians claim to have the truth (Jesus even called himself the truth), but how do they know? How do YOU know?
1. I don't think that Christians have knowledge (although I don't claim to know this) and, thus, have no place what so ever to tell others that they know truth.
2. I don't think faith can be rational, faith is always a non-rational (irrational) inference.
Does anybody disagree? Why or why not?
With respect
Aaron S. Rutledge
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/18/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | "Truth is a rational person, Jesus, and faith in Him unlocks true knowledge, therefore, truth and knowledge are not a thing nor a concept, such would be irrational.
I know, because I know the person!"
How is that human beings "know people" and how is this "knowing" different than any other knowing. You know people in concepts. For instance, I might say that "I know my mother", but all I really know is my concept of her. It seems that knowledge always falls back to concepts and perceptions/intutions (or whatever else you want to use to classify mediums of knowledge). And where does your concept come from? Indeed, you do have a concept of Jesus the person, but where does this concept come from and how do you know it is accurate? What criteria do you use to judge?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/18/2004 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | "As an infant, when you were sucking on your mother's tit, she was only a concept to you?
As an infant who didn't even reason yet, weren't you physically experiencing your mother?
Concept is "A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences."
So any concept you had of your mother came about through prior experience of her. You knew Momma == Milk because you'd FIRST gotten milk from her."
Yes, concepts are derived from experience. Of course there is no way to be certain that the concepts formed by our experience correspond in any way to what might be called "objective reality." In the case of physical experience (i.e. interaction between you and the discrete objects of physical reality) I would have to resort to a pretty hardcore skepticism to place the knowledge recieved by the experiences into doubt. Nevertheless, they can be doubted, and if they can be doubted they can't be certain. But if certainty does not obtain then we wouldn't want to call the concepts formed by the senses knowledge. Yes, i do take a hardline approach to the definition of knowledge, but I think that certainty should be a necessary condition of knowledge that is being labeled "truth."
But with the experience of Christ we have a different circumstance. We do not ahave a perception occuring in "concrete/physical" reality (whatever that may be). It seems to be a more intuitional a priori form of knowledge. You say that you experience Christ, but what you really experience is "feelings." These feelings, you assume, are produced as the result of an interaction with the person Jesus. You experience his love and his grace. You may even "feel" that he is speaking to your heart through the Holy Spirit. However, this doesn't seem, to me, likely. It seems that the feelings you experience are your own and that they originate from within rather than from without. In fact, this is how all feelings operate (so it seems to me). Feelings are of your own creation and are under your control. When you feel love from another person you are really only experiencing the love that you show yourself. That is why it is possible not to feel love from a person who may, in actuality, love you a great deal and vice versa. Your experience of Jesus, thus, could be explained more probably by a combination of prior experience and a choice to accept the feelings associated with it. Or do you disagree? I probably haven't made myself sufficiently clear, so I await your responses.
As always, with respect
Aaron S. Rutledge | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/19/2004 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | You made yourself sufficiently clear, Aaron.
Though I think of conception as a distinct faculty of the mind: the apprehension of knowledge, that anything conceivable is intelligible, comprehensible.
The words conception, concept, notion, should be limited to the thought of what can not be represented in the imagination; as, the thought suggested by a general term. - Sir W. Hamilton
So a concept is something conceived in the mind: a THOUGHT or a NOTION, which is an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances, would my life in Christ be such, you appear to be saying, yes.
Though I would be resorting to some pretty hardcore skepticism to place the personal knowledge of Jesus experienced in my life into a thought or a notion, or the kind of feelings you suggest, because of the supernatural, explain that.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/19/2004 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Aaron,
Good to see you on board! I have thought a little about these issues myself, but I definitely wouldn't be the one to give you an adequate answer to your question (Alan Rhoda would be much more apt) Here is a discussion that i started a while back where there was some discussion of this topic. www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1537&SearchTerms=,certain
I myself have now come to a belief that some form of Theism is probably the most certain thing that I believe, but that is for a later discussion 
But just a quick comment...
You said quote:
Yes, concepts are derived from experience. Of course there is no way to be certain that the concepts formed by our experience correspond in any way to what might be called "objective reality." In the case of physical experience (i.e. interaction between you and the discrete objects of physical reality) I would have to resort to a pretty hardcore skepticism to place the knowledge recieved by the experiences into doubt.Nevertheless, they can be doubted, and if they can be doubted they can't be certain. But if certainty does not obtain then we wouldn't want to call the concepts formed by the senses knowledge. Yes, i do take a hardline approach to the definition of knowledge, but I think that certainty should be a necessary condition of knowledge that is being labeled "truth."
So do you doubt the concepts formed through experience? If so, then you are you are a pretty hardcore universal skeptic, and there is not much point even discussing the topic. If you from the outset deny that we can have certain knowledge, then you can't really be proven otherwise. It seems to me that while I may not be able to prove to you that my experiences are certain, I intuitively "see" that they are true. I think that there are many other truths that I know intuitively, and we couldn't have this discussion without this common grasping of reality.
Here is a really cool article that i just came across today that I think is very pertinent to your questions ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine.html Click on "research materials and essays" on the left side. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read S. Katz article "Memory and Mind: Introduction to Augustine's Epistemology."
Look forward to hearing back from you,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/19/2004 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by a2rutled
1. I don't think that Christians have knowledge (although I don't claim to know this) and, thus, have no place what so ever to tell others that they know truth.
2. I don't think faith can be rational, faith is always a non-rational (irrational) inference.
With all due respect, Aaron, you are advancing two highly contentious claims here without giving the rest of us any reason to take these claims seriously. It would greatly help the discussion if you could define what you mean by "knowledge" and by "rational" and then give us some reason why we should accept (1) and (2).
I suspect that in order to make (1) plausible you are going to have to define "knowledge" in a very strong sense, in which case it will follow that we "know" next to nothing. And I suspect that in order to make (2) plausible you are going to have to define "rational" in a very strong sense, in which case it will follow that very few beliefs qualify.
Seems to me that IF Christianity is true, and IF there are exist cogent arguments for the central claims of Christianity, then it is possible to "know" Christianity to be true in at least as strong a sense as we "know" that other minds exist or that the Big Bang occurred. And IF there are cogent arguments for the central claims of Christianity, then it is certainly possible to be "rational" in believing that Christianity is true.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/19/2004 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes Alan, you are right, they are highly contentious claims, and I have given no reason for any of you to accept them. For the sake of brevity I'm going to try to keep what follows as simplistic as possible but would appreciate later comment.
Alan: I suspect that in order to make (1) plausible you are going to have to define "knowledge" in a very strong sense
You are right again. I am defining knowledge in very strong terms. I will put forth the definition I assume:
S knows P iff: (1) S believes P
(2) P is true
(3) P is justified
and
S is justified in believing P iff: (1) S is certain that P is true
I should, i suppose, offer an explanation as to why I assume this definition of knowledge and justification. It simply seems intuitive that if one is going to claim to "know" that some proposition is true they must be able to show that it is certain. Truth is not a word to be thrown around nor is it something for which we should bend the epistemological rules for in order to make it more easily claimable. I feel that this is what has become fashionable in current Christian philosophical circles and it doesn't seem appropriate to me.
I am well aware of classic problems associated with "advocating" skepticism, I realize that I will be chided for holding either a contradictory or illegitamate position. Either I am making a knowledge claim about knowledge, or I am not. In the first case I will have contradicted myself. In the second I will have not made a claim that needs to be defended against. Very well, nevertheless, I think it is highly perposterous that philosophers have been "lowering the bar" for knowledge and truth. I don't find any of the "particularist" theories of justification and knowledge to be very concvincing (for instance relying on probabilities, degrees of rationality and truth, common sense or theories of criteria-less knowledge). I would be willing to hold something like a ciritcal realist position of knowledge just for the sake of continuing the pursuit of knowledge, but then you seem to float into the realm of coherentism (for both truth and justification). The reason I am a skeptic is simple...I have not found knowledge. When I say this I am being very strict again. What i really mean is, I have found that next to none of the beliefs I hold are doubtless. I am not comfortable with saying that I "know" anything because I don't beleieve I do know anything, at least not to the point at which I would be willing to tell others that I have the truth (barring analytic truths and ostensive definitions and whatnot). And I think that if people are honest with themselves they will come to the same conclusion...though I don't claim to know that other people aren't being honest or even what they're intentions and aims are.
In terms of rationality, yes I was assuming a very hardline definition of rationality. A decision to believe is a rational decision to believe only when it has been made on the foundation of knowledge as i defined it above. Obviously, then, that throws just about every belief everyone has (as far as i have understood the beliefs of others) into the realm of faith (if faith is being defined as a super-rational or non-rational belief).
So yes Alan, I am very strict. But I feel we have to be. What passes for 'knowledge' these days is downright apalling. I can understand, in theory, the concept of degrees of rationality, but what it mean to say that we are approaching rationality, knowledge or truth? It seems as though we would have to know where the line lays to know how close we have come. I am very suspect of all knowledge claims precisely because I want to find truth, not because I want to keep others from it.
And I agree wholeheartedly with you that "if" Christianity is true and "if" there are cogent arguments for is central tenants then, indeed it is reasonable to assume that we can and do have knowledge concerning reality. But this is percisely the question. Is it true, and are the arguments cogent? To me, it seems not...
Looking forward to your replies
Aaron S. Rutledge
PS Thank you, Ross, for the article. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/20/2004 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Aaron: I am very suspect of all knowledge claims precisely because I want to find truth, not because I want to keep others from it.
Tim: Excellent, because if you say, "The truth is there is no truth", I hope you see how such an argument comments suicide . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/20/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Ross
Sorry about the confusion. I was less than precise with my language. Unfortunately, communication is something that we will struggle with a lot during this discussion for the simple reason that language can be used so vaguely, ambiguously and whatnot. So thank you for your comittment to communication, I appreciate it much.
Ok, so the passage in question is:
"It simply seems intuitive that if one is going to claim to "know" that some proposition is true they must be able to show that it is certain."
I think you interpreted it as saying much more than I had intended it to say. I think you interpreted as saying something like:
"In order for knowledge to obtain, the knowledge in question must be demonstratable."
I can see how this is what you might have read from the passage seing as I used the word "must" ambiguously. My intent was not to make such a strong philosophical statement. If I were to re-write what i was trying to say in that passage I would re-write it as such:
"If someone is going to tell me they have the truth and tell me that I should believe it (particularly in regards to Christian truth claims) I think they should have to demonstrate it to me.
Now, obvioulsy I am not going to question your truth claim "I am being appeared to computerly" because, as far as I am concerned, this is an uncontroversial claim in that its truth or falsity are of little importance to me. But when Christians say things like "I am being appeared to Jesusly" and mix this claim with the further claim that "this expereience is the only way to salvation" thus implying that I am not saved without it, I tend to get a little more contentious. I then have to begin to ask the familiar questions about experience, concepts, knowledge, truth, history, etc., which is, after all, why i am here asking those questions. I have been told that in order to be saved I must "confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord." This would, of course, presuppose a knowledge of Jesus as Lord, Jesus as a person, Jesus as an "existing entity", Jesus as "savior" and a whole plethora of other things which I don't think anyone really has knowledge of. And I don't take an appeal to experience seriously because one person's experience of Jesus as love may be another person's experience of Buddha as love or another person's experience of "self" as love. So, my mission is to see if there is anything to this Christian claim because, obviously, salvation is important! That is, if it is true that Jesus is the ONLY way, truth and life. So far, I have not found any reason to believe that the Jesus story is true. I believe in love, but I don't think I need Jesus, or even God to explain love. And for me, salvation and love will always come hand and hand.
Tim,
I'm not sure if you arguing against me or applauding me for NOT arguing a certain way. Either way, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against truth.
Laika,
No, I have not read any of Haack's work, but I appreciate your joke about redundancy.
Aaron S. Rutledge
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/20/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for making your position more explicit, Aaron. Having written my dissertation on the problem of inductive skepticism, I sympathize with some of your concerns, but I do not think skepticism is the proper response. Some comments on your reply.
quote:
Originally posted by a2rutled
I am defining knowledge in very strong terms....:
S knows P iff: (1) S believes P, (2) P is true, (3) P is justified
and
S is justified in believing P iff: (1) S is certain that P is true
There are a couple amguities in your position as stated here. First, in (3) you say that P, the proposition believed, must be justified, but you define justification as justification not of the proposition believed but of the believing subject ("S is justified ..."). Let's call the first "objective justification" and the second "subjective justification". You seem to be saying that knowledge requires objective justification, but then you define justification subjectively. Which is it? And how do these two senses of justification relate to each other and to knowledge? (Michael William discusses these issues in his book "Problems of Knowledge").
Second, suppose we revise your definition of knowledge in terms of your definition of justification. Thus,
S knows that P iff: (1) S believes P, (2) P is true, and (3*) S is certain that P is true.
The problem is that this definition of knowledge won't support your skepticism. "Certain" can be taken in two different senses, a subjective sense in which we say that the subject S is certain that P, and an objective sense in which say that it is certain that P is true either absolutely or relative to some body of information I. In the first sense certainty is psychological: S is certain that P iff S has complete confidence that P. In the second sense certainty is logical: P is certain absolutely iff it is a logical truth and it is certain in relation to information I iff I entails P. The way you define it, justification requires subjective certainty. But if this is the kind of justification that pertains to knowledge, then skepticism is easy to avoid, for then anyone who happens to have complete confidence in a true proposition has knowledge. So your position seems to require something stronger like objective certainty. If you think that is too strong, then I suggest dropping the "certainty" language and spelling out more explicitly what you mean.
Aaron: It simply seems intuitive that if one is going to claim to "know" that some proposition is true they must be able to show that it is certain. Truth is not a word to be thrown around nor is it something for which we should bend the epistemological rules for in order to make it more easily claimable.
Alan: Now you've shifted from discussing requirements for knowing to requirements for claiming knowledge. These are not the same thing. Moreover, it is essential to bear in mind that "knowledge" is not a univocal term. First, there seem to be different types of knowledge. Bertrand Russell distinguished between "knowledge by description" (e.g., "I know that the cat is on the mat") and "knowledge by acquaintance" (e.g., "I know Andre Agassi"). The distinction between these is embedded in many languages (e.g., Spanish: saber/conocer; French: savoir/connaitre; German: wissen/kennen). There also seems to be what we might call "practical knowledge" or know-how (e.g., "I know how to scramble eggs"). How these types of knowledge are related in a complex issue, but that there are important distinctions here seems clear.
Second, there seem to be different degrees of knowledge. Think about it this way: All of the core concepts commonly used to define knowledge admit of degrees. A proposition can be more or less strongly believed. It can be more or less true. There can be more or less evidence for the belief. One can be more or less justified in believing. One's cognitive faculties can be more or less reliable. And so on. Given this variability in the conditions for knowledge, we have a spectrum of cases ranging along several dimensions. At the extreme maximal end we have when we might call "Godlike knowledge". Somewhere further down, perhaps, we have something like "Einstein-type knowledge", then "man-on-the-street knowledge", "childlike knowledge", and "animal knowledge" (e.g., "Fido knows where the bone is buried").
Aaron: I think it is highly preposterous that philosophers have been "lowering the bar" for knowledge and truth.
Alan: If we countenance different types and degrees of knowledge, then there need be no lowering of the bar to avoid skepticism. We can grant that we have little or no high-grade knowledge, while at the same time accepting that we have a great deal of lower-grade knowledge. It's not a simple either-or.
Aaron: The reason I am a skeptic is simple...I have not found knowledge...What i really mean is, I have found that next to none of the beliefs I hold are doubtless. I am not comfortable with saying that I "know" anything because I don't believe I do know anything, at least not to the point at which I would be willing to tell others that I have the truth (barring analytic truths and ostensive definitions and whatnot).
Alan: If knowledge requires indubitability, then of course we have little or no knowledge. But that really isn't a very interesting conclusion. It's just your run-of-the-mill fallibilism, and not even controversial. If that's what your skepticism amounts to then I'd say it hardly deserves the name, for as the term is commonly used "knowledge" does not require indubitability. So, sure, we don't have much in the way of Knowledge (with a capital 'K'), but we know a lot just the same.
The same goes for making truth claims. When a person claims that the cat is on the mat, or that God exists, she is not typically claiming infallibility or incorrigibility or that she Knows Truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth). She is merely claiming to have a justified true belief that God exists, in the sense that it seems to her that her belief is rational and that it corresponds for the most part with reality. In common parlance this is readily understood. No one (except maybe a skeptical philosopher) would mistake her claim that God exists with pretentions to apodictic certitude on the matter.
Aaron: I can understand, in theory, the concept of degrees of rationality, but does what it mean to say that we are approaching rationality, knowledge or truth? It seems as though we would have to know where the line lays to know how close we have come.
Alan: If knowledge, truth, rationality, etc. are not univocal but analogical concepts, then we shouldn't expect there to be sharp cut-off lines. At any rate, all we need to make sense of the idea of approaching knowledge, truth, or rationality is some notion of the ideal and some rough notion of how far and in what ways something falls short of that. We don't have to know find a strict cut-off line.
Anyway, gotta run. Take care.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/20/2004 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Aaron,
Let me say first off that I have appreciated your willingness to clarify and lay out your position. This has been a very pleasant discussion so far and I hope that it continues.
You’re right; I interpreted your statement as “In order for knowledge to obtain, the knowledge in question must be demonstratable." So lets work with your revised statement. You said
quote:
]"If someone is going to tell me they have the truth and tell me that I should believe it (particularly in regards to Christian truth claims) I think they should have to demonstrate it to me.”[/
I am in overall agreement with your position. I too believe that something as important as believing Christianity should have STRONG reasons for believing that there position is right, especially because according to Christian doctrine men will be held accountable for rejecting Christianity.
And I think that a very strong case for Christianity can be made! I hope that eventually we can discuss my reasons for this confidence, but I don’t really have the time to do this in this post (I’m not a very good typer 
But I think that the first step in the discussion would be to argue for the truth of Theism over atheism. Before I lay out a whole bunch of arguments for theism (which I believe can prove theism beyond a reasonable doubt), I would like to hear your thoughts on the arguments for the existence of God. I think that this will be vital to moving forward in this discussion.
Your last couple of sentences did bring up some important points. You said quote:
So far, I have not found any reason to believe that the Jesus story is true. I believe in love, but I don't think I need Jesus, or even God to explain love. And for me, salvation and love will always come hand and hand.
Quickly, I would ask first how you explain the historical data of the New Testament as well as the rapid development of Christianity. There has to be some explanation, right?
Second, I would really like to have you explain your beliefs about love. It seems that you take it to be the ultimate goal of life, which I would fully agree with. But it seems to be a very difficult task to ground the objectivity of love as good without God. That would lead us into a discussion of your view on moral and aesthetic value.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/21/2004 1:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Aaron,
. . . Jesus as Lord, Jesus as a person, Jesus as an "existing entity", Jesus as "savior" and a whole plethora of other things, which I don't think anyone really has knowledge of.
So, my mission is to see if there is anything to this Christian claim because, obviously, salvation is important!
Tim: I am making the discovering of 'importance' difficult, if I believe there is no knowledge of it to be found anywhere . . . am I not?
That there is no truth or knowledge about Jesus for me to find, "is the only possible truth concerning Him", is a rationalization that would make everyone a liar about his or her truth claims about him, along with Jesus himself . . . would it not?
Respectfully yours,
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/21/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey
Wow, I have a lot to respond to here! I'm thankful for that! However, I want to be able to respond to all of it in full, so if you could give me some time before you put up any more posts, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/24/2004 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
Alan: There are a couple amguities in your position as stated here. First, in (3) you say that P, the proposition believed, must be justified, but you define justification as justification not of the proposition believed but of the believing subject ("S is justified ...").
Aaron: Sorry, Alan, you’ll have to forgive my ambiguities. I am not used to being as thoroughly rigorous in my writing as I am sure you are. Thank you, though, for pointing it out to me. Furthermore, I am still at my primitive stages of philosophizing and by no means do I hold any concrete positions. In my definition of knowledge, it was my intention to define justification as you defined it under the term “objective justification.” Thus, I would revise (3) to say:
(3) it is certain that P is true (should I leave off the “is true” at the end? I don’t know, I think you get my point.)
Alan: Now you've shifted from discussing requirements for knowing to requirements for claiming knowledge. These are not the same thing. Moreover, it is essential to bear in mind that "knowledge" is not a univocal term. First, there seem to be different types of knowledge. Bertrand Russell distinguished between "knowledge by description" (e.g., "I know that the cat is on the mat") and "knowledge by acquaintance" (e.g., "I know Andre Agassi"). The distinction between these is embedded in many languages (e.g., Spanish: saber/conocer; French: savoir/connaitre; German: wissen/kennen). There also seems to be what we might call "practical knowledge" or know-how (e.g., "I know how to scramble eggs"). How these types of knowledge are related in a complex issue, but that there are important distinctions here seems clear:
Given this variability in the conditions for knowledge, we have a spectrum of cases ranging along several dimensions. At the extreme maximal end we have when we might call "Godlike knowledge". Somewhere further down, perhaps, we have something like "Einstein-type knowledge", then "man-on-the-street knowledge", "childlike knowledge", and "animal knowledge" (e.g., "Fido knows where the bone is buried").
If we countenance different types and degrees of knowledge, then there need be no lowering of the bar to avoid skepticism. We can grant that we have little or no high-grade knowledge, while at the same time accepting that we have a great deal of lower-grade knowledge. It's not a simple either-or.
Aaron: I can see where you’re going with all of this (I think). Basically, you are saying that the dichotomy I’ve set up (knowledge/no knowledge) is a false one because there simply seem to be more than one kind and grade of knowledge. I see the examples you gave and I’m not sure what to make of them. It seems true that in every day parlance, we do ‘refer’ to all of those examples when we use the word knowledge. Yet the actual definition of the word knowledge seems to change as used differently in the different examples. This seems like attempt to make the idea of knowledge more ambiguous as to side-step the issue at hand. I would like a definition of what knowledge is so that we can assess whether or not we ever have it. However, if no single, clear definition can be offered, then why even try to claim that we have knowledge? If we can’t define it, then we can have no basis for deciding when knowledge is obtained and when it is not because we literally have not specified what it is. That is fine if you want to stretch the word knowledge to cover a multitude of different things so as to make the usage of the word so utterly vague as to be useless in philosophical discourse. But the consequence is that it becomes uselessly vague, and now the basis for our argument is practically obliterated.
Further, you’ll have to clarify what you meant at the beginning of your 2nd isolated paragraph when you stated:
Second, there seem to be different degrees of knowledge. Think about it this way: All of the core concepts commonly used to define knowledge admit of degrees. A proposition can be more or less strongly believed. It can be more or less true. There can be more or less evidence for the belief. One can be more or less justified in believing. One's cognitive faculties can be more or less reliable. And so on.
Aaron: First, I'm not sure if you meant to correlate strength of belief and truth here, but I am going to assume that you were. That being the case, I have to inquire as to why the strength with which a belief is believed has anything to do with how close it is to being true. It would not seem unreasonable to hold that people hold all kinds of strong convictions that are untrue. Second, the problem of criteria (or something like it) seems to pose a problem to talking about "good" evidence, "reliable" faculties, thus providing "more" justification. It seems, again, that in order to know whether or not we have good evidence, we have to have some idea of what the truth already is (assuming good evidence points toward the truth). Taking your example of "reliable faculties" how do we decide who's faculties are really the most reliable? To what standard do we judge, and in order to judge wouldn't we already have to know what reliable faculties are and what it is they produce (namely, knowledge)?
Alan: If knowledge requires indubitability, then of course we have little or no knowledge. But that really isn't a very interesting conclusion. It's just your run-of-the-mill fallibilism, and not even controversial. If that's what your skepticism amounts to then I'd say it hardly deserves the name, for as the term is commonly used "knowledge" does not require indubitability. So, sure, we don't have much in the way of Knowledge (with a capital 'K'), but we know a lot just the same.
Aaron: I wasn't sure if you were trying to be snide, but with all due respect my aim is not to be interesting. My aim is to find truth. It might be the case that it is just run-of-the-mill fallibilism and you may take it for granted that we can't find knowledge with a capital "K", but it is precisely knowledge with a capital "K" that I am not only pursuing, but desiring to find. I'm not satisfied with what you have defined as “low grade knowledge”. I want to know truth, in all capitals! But if one can't have knowledge with a capital "K", from whence does one derive or find the truth? I want to live my life in accord with truth, but in order to do that I must know what it is and I must know it with a capital "K." I think that you and I agree that that is not possible, I just think we understand the implications of this “fact” in very different ways.
Thanks again, Alan, for your help :)
Ross,
Ross: Let me say first off that I have appreciated your willingness to clarify and lay out your position. This has been a very pleasant discussion so far and I hope that it continues.
Aaron: Ditto :)
Ross: I am in overall agreement with your position. I too believe that something as important as believing Christianity should have STRONG reasons for believing that there position is right, especially because according to Christian doctrine men will be held accountable for rejecting Christianity.
Ross: And I think that a very strong case for Christianity can be made! I hope that eventually we can discuss my reasons for this confidence, but I don’t really have the time to do this in this post I’m not a very good typer
Aaron: I’m in no rush!
Ross: But I think that the first step in the discussion would be to argue for the truth of Theism over atheism. Before I lay out a whole bunch of arguments for theism (which I believe can prove theism beyond a reasonable doubt), I would like to hear your thoughts on the arguments for the existence of God. I think that this will be vital to moving forward in this discussion.
Aaron: It is my understanding that the arguments for the existence of God at best prove inconclusive, at worst prove unsound. Nevertheless, I would love to hear you out if you disagree!
Ross: Your last couple of sentences did bring up some important points. You said
Ross: So far, I have not found any reason to believe that the Jesus story is true. I believe in love, but I don't think I need Jesus, or even God to explain love. And for me, salvation and love will always come hand and hand.
Ross: Quickly, I would ask first how you explain the historical data of the New Testament as well as the rapid development of Christianity. There has to be some explanation, right?
Aaron: As a Christian, I was hoping that you’d be able to explain it to me! I’m assuming that you are assuming (that’s a lot of assumptions so let me know if I’m wrong) that there can be no reasonable explanation for the success of Christianity apart from divine intervention. I would strongly disagree. I think that the fact of the existence of other religions is a strong counterpoint to your claim. Perhaps you could explain their existence and origin and how it is any different from Christianity’s .
Ross: Second, I would really like to have you explain your beliefs about love. It seems that you take it to be the ultimate goal of life, which I would fully agree with. But it seems to be a very difficult task to ground the objectivity of love as good without God. That would lead us into a discussion of your view on moral and aesthetic value.
Aaron: I don’t know where I stand on morality. However, I don’t believe that an appeal to God clears anything up, in fact it seems to muddle things quite a bit. I’d be willing to discuss this in more detail if you’d like!
Ross, it is a pleasure to get to dialogue with you, I look forward to your reply.
Tim,
Tim: I am making the discovering of 'importance' difficult, if I believe there is no knowledge of it to be found anywhere . . . am I not?
That there is no truth or knowledge about Jesus for me to find, "is the only possible truth concerning Him", is a rationalization that would make everyone a liar about his or her truth claims about him, along with Jesus himself . . . would it not?
Aaron: Tim, I am not claiming that the only truth about Jesus is that there is no truth. I think there is a truth, I just don't think anybody really knows it. Further, I’m not claiming that everyone who claims Jesus is a liar, just that they are quite possibly mistaken :) You may recant that this seems unlikely considering the vast number of people who claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus. After all, what is the possibility of them all being wrong, mistaken, or inaccurate? Unortunately, the other (supposedly false) religions prove a counter-point to this argument. Apprently, according to Christians themselves, mass deception/inaccuracy about the reality of God is not so unlikely after all. As always, if you are want to discuss this in greater detail, I would love to.
Thanks all,
Aaron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/27/2004 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Psa 53:1 . . . A Contemplation of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." - NKJV
Aaron: It is my understanding that the arguments for the existence of God at best prove inconclusive, at worst prove unsound.
Tim: I have nothing more to say at this point or rather right now . . .
Graciously yours,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/27/2004 4:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Psalm 53
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their
ways are vile;
there is no one who does
good.
God looks down from
heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who
understand,
any who seek God.
Everyone has turned away,
they have together become
corrupt;
there is none who does
good,
not even one.
Will the evildoers never
learn-
those who devour my
people as men eat bread
and who do not call on
God?
There they were,
overwhelmed with
dread
where there was nothing to
dread
God scattered the bones of
those who attacked you;
you put them to shame, for
God despised them.
Oh, that salvation for Israel
would come out of Zion!
When God restores the
fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice and Israel
be glad!
Pardon me Tim, but I am not an atheist, at least not in the traditional sense. And I AM seeking God, I want to know truth. Therefore, since it is the case that (according to your own book) God's word is truth (John 17.17), and Jesus is the...truth (John 14.6)and the word (John 1.1) and I have been told that as I ask, seek and knock the door will be opened (Matt. 7.7), I am also seeking God (Psalm 53.2). And even though Paul would later, and controversially, use this psalm out of context in Romans to 'prove' what the Reformed Protestants now call Total Depravity, I still believe I am searching for the truth, even though I don't think that Christianity is it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/27/2004 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Aaron,
Thanks for the detailed reply. It's taken me a while to respond b/c things have been so busy for me this past week.
Aaron: In my definition of knowledge, it was my intention to define justification as you defined it under the term “objective justification.” Thus, I would revise (3) to say:
(3) it is certain that P is true (should I leave off the “is true” at the end? ...)
Alan: OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm sure you realize, though, that you define knowledge in a much stronger way than nearly everyone else. That's fine if you want to do that, but it does create a significant risk for miscommunication. When discussing your views you will need to be careful to spell out what you mean. As far as the "is true" on the end, it doesn't much matter b/c it is implied in the claim that it is certain that P that P is taken to be true. I would probably leave it off as unnecessary.
Aaron: I can see where you’re going with all of this (I think). Basically, you are saying that the dichotomy I’ve set up (knowledge/no knowledge) is a false one because there simply seem to be more than one kind and grade of knowledge.
Alan: Exactly.
Aaron: I see the examples you gave and I’m not sure what to make of them. It seems true that in everyday parlance, we do ‘refer’ to all of those examples when we use the word knowledge. Yet the actual definition of the word knowledge seems to change as used differently in the different examples. This seems like attempt to make the idea of knowledge more ambiguous as to side-step the issue at hand.
Alan: No, it's not an attempt to make the idea of knowledge more ambiguous or to side-step the issue. My aim, rather, it to clarify the issue by pointing out that the idea of knowledge is already ambiguous. I think all of these types of knowledge bear an analogical "family resemblance" to each other, and that's why we use the same word to refer to them. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a sharp knowledge/nescience dichotomy. Sure, we can construct a sharp dichotomy by stipulating a precise boundary, but such a stipulation will be somewhat arbitrary, unless we restrict "knowledge" to some ideal cognitive state that we rarely, if ever, realize. I take it that that's what you want to do.
Aaron: I would like a definition of what knowledge is so that we can assess whether or not we ever have it. However, if no single, clear definition can be offered, then why even try to claim that we have knowledge? If we can’t define it, then we can have no basis for deciding when knowledge is obtained and when it is not because we literally have not specified what it is.
Alan: The important thing is not whether we call a certain cognitive state "knowledge". What is important is that we strive to do the best we can to put ourselves in a good position to obtain significant true beliefs and avoid significant error. The idea of knowledge refers to the goal of our epistemic endeavors, and we can specify criteria that allow us to fallibly ascertain in important respects how close we are to that goal. Specifically, we can put our beliefs through empirical and rational tests and see how well they perform. The whole enterprise of science rests upon this possibility.
Aaron: First, I'm not sure if you meant to correlate strength of belief and truth here, but I am going to assume that you were.
Alan: No, I was not implying any sort of necessary correlation between them. By the strength of a belief I just mean the degree of psychological confidence one has that it is true.
Aaron: Second, the problem of criteria (or something like it) seems to pose a problem to talking about "good" evidence, "reliable" faculties, thus providing "more" justification. It seems, again, that in order to know whether or not we have good evidence, we have to have some idea of what the truth already is (assuming good evidence points toward the truth). Taking your example of "reliable faculties" how do we decide who's faculties are really the most reliable? To what standard do we judge, and in order to judge wouldn't we already have to know what reliable faculties are and what it is they produce (namely, knowledge)?
Alan: Good question. The answer is that we don't start the knowledge game in an epistemic vacuum, or in a state of epistemic neutrality. We start the game with already formed (even if not consciously recognized) assumptions about truth and evidence. For example, we come into the world implicitly trusting our senses and our rational intuitions. Most fundamentally, we start the game assuming that appearances are generally trustworthy guides to reality. We've no way to prove that that is so without begging the question. A kind of epistemic faith is required to even play the game. But that faith is rational because therein lies our only hope of obtaining knowledge.
Aaron: I wasn't sure if you were trying to be snide, but with all due respect my aim is not to be interesting. My aim is to find truth. It might be the case that it is just run-of-the-mill fallibilism and you may take it for granted that we can't find knowledge with a capital "K", but it is precisely knowledge with a capital "K" that I am not only pursuing, but desiring to find. I'm not satisfied with what you have defined as “low grade knowledge”. I want to know truth, in all capitals!
Alan: I wasn't trying to be snide. When I said that your skepticism is not interesting and amounts to nothing more than a run-of-the-mill fallibilism that nearly everyone alreadly accepts, even though they wouldn't call it skepticism, what I mean was that it's not controversial. To claim that we don't have much in the way of capital "K" knowledge is no more earth-shattering a conclusion than saying that grass is green and the sky is blue. It's nothing worth losing any sleep over.
I do applaud your pursuit of capital "K" knowlege and capital "T" truth, however. I agree with you that we shouldn't remain satistied with "low grade knowledge". But remember that capital "K" knowlege and capital "T" truth are the goals of a quest that will have barely begun when our brief sojourn on this planet is over. Keeping sight of the goal is necessary to make progress in the quest. If we can progress from C-grade knowledge all the way to A-grade knowledge in this lifetime, great. But if our best efforts only get us as far as B-grade knowledge, that is nothing to be spurned, for we are nearer to our goal than when we started.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/28/2004 1:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan: We start the game with already formed . . . evidence.
Aaron when you said, "It is my understanding that the arguments for the existence of God at best prove inconclusive, at worst prove unsound."
It was only my point not to say more until your response to the posted verse was made, to see where you clearly stand. I might appear uncaring, but it is just the opposite.
Luk 7:35But wisdom is justified of all her children. - AV
And,
"If the message is unwelcome, nothing that the messenger can say or do will be right" - Maclaren
Therefore, I will say it is 'wisdom' you are seeking, through comprehending the available or evident KNOWLEDGE! Truth will never be found if there is no fact or evidence that it exist . . . and I do exist, therefore the truth of it does, which is 'wisdom' based upon KNOWLEDGE!
Jesus rules,
Tim
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:25 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 |
|
|