Epistemological Preliminaries (a discussion moved from "Official RRS defeats..." thread)
Offline Scottmax says:Let me give an example: My wife goes to work before me and returns after I do. I leave the house in the morning and my newspaper in sitting on the kitchen table. When I return home, I find it on the floor. Now I can come up with a number of theories for how this happened.
My dog pulled was looking on the table for food to steal and knocked it off.
My wife returned home early, knocked the paper on the floor, then left again. (My wife has little tolerance for newspapers on the floor, though.)
A burglar picked the lock on my door (no broken windows), came into my house and moved the newspaper.
A Japanese ninja was pursuing a victim and took a shortcut through my house using special ninja house entering techniques. His sword swept my newspaper off the table as he passed through my house.
Each of these is possible, but each one adds additional complications. Most likely the dog did it, but my wife is still a possibility, although far less likely. If it was a burglar, I would expect to find additional evidence such as missing items or signs of entry.
Excellent work here. That is an excellent example of Ockham’s Razor at its finest. However, there are also many scenarios in which Ockham’s Razor does not lead one to the truth. One great example, I think, is the movie The Life of David Gale. Now I’m warning you, there are some spoilers here…
In the movie, Gale (Spacey) goes on trial for murdering a woman who was a colleague of his. He claims he is innocent, but the evidence against him is entirely damning. In fact, they have a video tape of him with the woman gagged and tied up. Ockham’s Razor at this point would certainly point to his guilt. Indeed, it is applied and he ends up getting the death penalty for it. However, just after he is executed the full video tape emerges revealing the whole truth—which is that he and the woman who died plotted this thing together to prove the epistemological limitations of the legal system and their ability to accurately determine the guilt of a person with the kind of certitude that warrants the death penalty. The system killed an innocent man.
Now Ockham’s Razor was obviously applied here. It was a “possibility” all along that Spacey was innocent (just as it was a “possibility” that a burglar broke into your house). And it was not an outrageous possibility. He was claiming that he was innocent, and the woman was a close friend of his. But other evidence pointed rather clearly to his guilt. Yet even with the video evidence against him, it was still possible that he was innocent, that the video evidence didn’t tell the whole truth. But to imagine such a scenario would have been contrary to Ockham’s Razor because it would have added “additional complications.” This is an example of how tightly interwoven Ockham’s Razor is with our finite knowledge.
Now that is just one example of Ockham’s Razor not working. What I am saying is not necessarily to throw out the Razor, but to recognize that it is not an inerrant method of discerning truth. Ockham’s Razor is really only as “sharp” as you are (hmm… I think I just coined a new tagline…hehe). It is completely contingent upon your finite knowledge of the situation—which may or may not be knowledge enough to make an accurate judgment. What Christians claim is that a very important piece of knowledge of the situation is found in the testimony of the church—which is a testimony of God revealing Himself through Jesus of Nazareth. If the testimony of the church is true, and if Jesus Christ did live, perform miracles, say what he said, die on a cross, and raise again, this is information that must be dealt with and must shape our understanding of reality.
But the event of Jesus is not the only piece of information that must be dealt with, I think. We must also consider the claims of the Muslim, and the Morman, and the Taoist, and the Buddhist, and the Hindu, and we must fit that information into our understanding of reality as well—with the same critical eye with which we examine everything. I have a friend who said that he laid his hands on someone and healed them of their blindness. I have another friend (C.S. Lewis’s step-daughter-in-law, in fact) who said that she calmed a storm “In the name of Jesus” while they were out on a boat. I have another friend who is a Taoist who says that he has found himself levitating and able to see through walls while meditating. That same friend said that Chinese scientists have actually conducted experiments with the miracles performed by Taoist masters. Then we have other information such as recorded in Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity—which was a series of experiments done on the paranormal—which speaks of several phenomenon that seem to indicate the existence of ESP. I have heard of several occasions in which doctors have given a diagnoses of certain death to a patient, only for something “miraculous” to happen, thus finding the patient to be completely free from the ailment and able to live a normal and healthy life from there on. For example, there is the historically documented and verifiable case of C.S. Lewis and his wife Joy. Joy had a kind of cancer that weakened her bones. One day, Lewis prayed over Joy that God would let him carry the burden over her cancer. Almost immediately, she felt better and was found to have some new source of strength in her bones. Meanwhile Lewis began to fall ill, contracting a condition in which the nutrients in his bones were being depleted. This state continued in both of them for about a year until Joy’s cancer came back, and Lewis began to feel better again.
Are there scientific explanations for all of this? Possibly. It may be the case that science will be able to explain all of this in full detail at some point in the future. But as of right now, these things seem to be more congruent with more supernatural worldviews. You may call this a “God of the Gaps,” but I think that would be a false accusation. It would only be God of the Gaps if you took a bottom-up perspective and said, “I can’t understand this scientifically, thus: God.” However, that is not how religions such as Christianity operate. Christianity claims to have received direct revelation of God through Jesus, a divine bestowal of understanding concerning reality from the transcendent “top” to the immanent and finite “bottom.” The claim is that these ideas are not fabrications of men—filling the gaps—but illumination from God. Take on the presuppositions of Christianity, and really seek to understand them deeply, and it makes quite compelling sense.
Scottmax writes:
Here we are proposing that something may be true but that if it is true, that we would not be able to understand it or judge the truth of it. We have no way to falsify the idea and no way to prove it either. This is just as meaningful as proposing that we live in a perfect Matrix-esque simulation that is impossible for us to detect. Could be, but that cannot possibly affect how we choose to live our day to day lives. It makes more sense to assume that we can understand our existence and to attempt to do so.
The ability to falsify something or not is really irrelevant to that something’s truth, as you and I know well from the IPU and BIV (Brain-In-Vat/Matrix world) arguments. Neither does being able to prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt” (such as in the court case of the Gale scenario mentioned above) necessarily equate with truth. All that is really necessary, I think, is compelling evidence—part of which, according to Christianity, is the entirely subjective element of the Holy Spirit.
About making predictions concerning the way things would be if there was God (or gods, etc.) …ok. First of all, you and Dawkins and I all understand that to imagine and presuppose such a God is to presuppose something unimaginably complex. Again I say that if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves at all, it would then be inextricable from our set of “predictions” to say that this unimaginably complex God would very likely poke himself or herself outside of our little imagined box of predictions in one way or another (or many ways, for that matter). The only rational, intellectually honest position would be one of radical epistemological humility.
Now that is not to say that such “predictions” would be a complete waste of time either, especially if you are presupposing a God who has revealed Himself to humanity such as we see in Christianity. I’m just saying that such predictions could not be held up as an absolute standard against which anything that doesn’t fit should be thrown out as rubbish. Rather in this case we would expect to see some of our predictions fulfilled, and some of them not to be fulfilled. There would be certain motifs that we could expect to see in the universe that would be in harmony with the way God has revealed himself, but we would also not be surprised to perhaps find other motifs that we cannot explain and don’t fit within our imagined predictions.
So yes, the logic of such an experiment would be fundamentally flawed in design if it expects to really “prove” or “disprove” anything outrightly. What would be a much more conducive experiment, I think, would be to ask the question, “What else would you expect it to look like if God manifested himself in the form of a Jewish carpenter in the first century whose last three years of life was spent revealing the ultimate reality to humanity? What remnants of evidence do you think we would see today if miracles were performed, and the dead were raised over 2000 years ago?” The reality of the situation is that our understanding of ancient history is slippery at best even with natural events: why would you expect the miraculous in ancient history to be any different?
I mean, today we are typically skeptical about any claim of the paranormal—be it UFOs, or God, or ghosts or whatever. If we start with the presupposition, “Nothing paranormal can happen,” and move from there, we can usually imagine scenarios that might explain the phenomenon naturally. C.S. Lewis puts it this way:
“I have only known one person in my life who claimed to have seen a ghost. It was a woman; and the interesting thing is that she disbelieved in the immortality of the soul before seeing the ghost and still disbelieves after having seen it. She thinks it was a hallucination. In other words, seeing is not believing. This is the first thing to get clear in talking about miracles. Whatever experiences we may have, we shall not regard them as miraculous if we already hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural. Any event which is claimed as a miracle is, in the last resort, an experience received from the senses; and the senses are not infallible. We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say. Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed. For let us make no mistake. If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing,; if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology.”
Despite all the scientific research to the contrary, many people still believe that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Despite all the scientific research, there are people who believe that Global Warming is a fabrication of “those liberals.” Despite knowing that 8 cents could give a meal to a starving child in Africa, we go ahead and buy that DVD, that new couch, or just one more beer. Seeing is not believing. Knowing is not believing. Believing is believing. This seems to be the natural implication of the “hermeneutical spiral” as well as the Critical Realist epistemology that nearly all working scientists seem to hold. This is the implication of the Christian phrase “Faith seeks understanding” and “I believe in order to understand.” It is what Lewis meant in his oft-quoted (but seldom cited) essay “Is Theology Poetry:” “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun is risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”
There is a ton more that could be written at this point concerning Critical Realist epistemology, and hermeneutics, and so on and so forth.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Go do some research, LOGOS=LOGIC
Atom
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’
atom = that which cannot be cut or divided.
Yet, we know atoms can indeed be split.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline thiest1 wrote:
Go do some research, LOGOS=LOGIC
Atom
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’
atom = that which cannot be cut or divided.
Yet, we know atoms can indeed be split.
hehe how old is the dictionary you use?
here is the proper definition of ATOM
an ATOM is
at·om 
/ˈætəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[at-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
| 1. | Physics.
|
| 2. | Energy. this component as the source of nuclear energy. |
| 3. | a hypothetical particle of matter so minute as to admit of no division. |
| 4. | anything extremely small; a minute quantity. |
- Login to post comments
Offline atom = that which cannot be cut or divided.
Yet, we know atoms can indeed be split.
Yes, you're thinking of the Argumentum ad Etymologiam, the appeal to etymology. 
I am Antie at the Infidelguy.com forums. Avatar made from this image.
- Login to post comments
Offline Veils of Maya wrote:thiest1 wrote:
Go do some research, LOGOS=LOGIC
Atom
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’
atom = that which cannot be cut or divided.
Yet, we know atoms can indeed be split.hehe how old is the dictionary you use?
here is the proper definition of ATOM
...
I'm using Greek definition of atom, just as you were using the Greek defintion of Logos.
Here's the "proper" defintion of Logos
Logos |ˈlōˌgōs; -ˌgäs| noun
Theology the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ. • (in Jungian psychology) the principle of reason and judgment, associated with the animus. Often contrasted with Eros . ORIGIN Greek, ‘word, reason.’
Notice that the word 'Logic' isn't anywhere to be found? Notice how it's specificly qualified as divine reason as identified in the Gospel of John? The Bible is calling itself reason. It's a circular reference.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Scottmax:Now if this only happened to Christians or only to Taoists, I might believe that something unusual was going on. Since it is equally likely to happen to atheists, I can't see calling it anything but a natural phenomenon for which we have inadequate explanation at the present.
Is it “equally likely to happen to atheists”? Do you have any data to back that up? Because all of the articles that I have ever seen regarding the health and mental well-being of people of faith vs. people not of faith unanimously point favorably to people of faith. Of course statistics and polls can often be deceiving. I’d be interested to see any information contrary to this.
Wow, I was getting ready to tackle this monster but I noticed that Veils of Maya already took it on. Veils answered this pretty much exactly as I would have, including the link I was going to give you regarding your question:
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
I have studied Zen Buddhism far less than Veils but I have studied it a bit. I don't accept the mystical parts of Buddhism and I don't believe that we should reject all earthly pleasures, but as a life philosophy I find it superior to Christianity in almost every way.
Cheers,
Scott
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks for the response Maya (and Scott). This is getting very much into issues of some other threads I’ve delved into, most notably this one on epistemology and suicide: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/7831 . Please check out my posts on that thread if you want to get a better idea of the direction I’m coming from (especially on why I think that atheism
Veils of Maya wrote:
In his book "The Evolving Self", Mihaly Csikszentmihaly devotes an entire chapter to this subject in which he identifies genetics, culture and ego as the three primary illusions that stand between us and the reality around us. While I agree that it is impossible to create a completely blank slate, I feel one can and must attempt to become aware of the "veils of maya" that cloud our vision. For example, it's impossible to ensure that jurors are completely unbiased on a particular case. However, this does not mean that the process of juror selection should be eliminated or that jurors access to the media should not be limited during the trial. Nor does it mean the Judge should not instruct the jurors to ignore evidence that is not relevant to the case at hand.
I would agree that it is good to be aware of what presuppositions and biases you have. We must not conclude, however, that simply because they are there they must be wrong.
One of the major issues I have with most religions is their claim to contain absolute truth. I feel this is simply quite improbable. Even if it were true, how could we, human beings ever comprehend it? Instead, if one sees the universe as a series of concepts that have proven value in particular contexts, we can become more aware of the reality around us.
Probability is an elusive concept. But even if you could constitute improbability in relation to “absolute truth”, how would you set up those parameters? Is it because it is “absolute” that you have a problem with it? Why? And why would it be necessarily unfathomable? Here is what I find hard to stomach: that God would send to an eternity of suffering (i.e. Hell) those who had never even a chance to “receive the Gospel.” That is difficult for me to grasp. Fortunately, I don’t think that perspective is really a Biblical one. After a very in-depth research paper on Hell, I’ve (at least tentatively) concluded that this kind of suffering is not the case. I think that this particular traditional notion of Christian absolute truth (i.e. Eternal suffering of those who never heard the gospel) is what makes the concept of “absolute truth” hard for us to accept. But if you have a situation in which everyone’s eternal state of conscoiusness is what they deserve based on what knowledge they did have, then I think this is really a non-issue.
I strongly agree that we can learn much from the study of that which is defined as mystical, paranormal or expressed though the arts. However, I think the context in which these areas have value is limited to understanding our hopes, fears, dreams and the psychological and physiological effects of meditation on the mind. For example, it's been historically documented that humans have created Gods to explain things that we now know are natural forces, such as the sun. They have prayed and made sacrifices to these Gods in hope for a good harvest. When their crops were bountiful, they felt their prayers had been heard. But when their crops were thin or barren, they thought they had lost favor with God. However, In reality, we know their actions had no effect since the sun is not sentient and could not receive their worship. What does this say about man's psychological needs? How does man interpret if and how prayer is answered? When people pray and meditate the only reasonably predictable results we can observe are those which are limited to physiological and psychological influences on the mind. How does the activity of prayer and meditation effect our outlook, clarity of thought, our ability to manage stress, etc.? Again, I think these are all very important areas of study, but we disagree on the context in which the results are valid.
Right. Even if you limit this phenomenon to the psychological, it is interesting that this non-ontic “idea” actually has ontological effects. We can measure the “effects,” we just cannot conclusively say what the “cause” is. Is it psycho-somatic? Or is it an ontological encounter with a life-giving transcendent reality? The answer, again, depends on your presuppositions.
See my response above. The value of studying these areas helps us understand our emotions and physiological needs, how we go about trying to meet these needs and which methods are successful and which actually produce tangible "better" results. If God truly is a "better" solution to these needs then the results should be self-evident. While God may somewhat put theists at ease with these situation, we do not see tangable results compaired to non-theists.
Actually, according to the link you provided for me, suicide rates are notably lower in countries that have a stronger religious population. I think that would be a tangible result, and one that logically follows belief in some sort of “higher power” or afterlife, especially when dealing with hardships or depression. Note that those countries that experience more hardships are more likely to believe in God. Take away that belief in God/Afterlife, and I would predict that the suicide rate would be incredible.
One of the reason I'm attracted to Zen Buddhism, from a purely philosophical position, is that is very practical. Suffering is part of life that we must deal with. While this does not mean we should give up, it means we must try to prevent needless suffering within the confines of impermanence and practical knowledge. There is no supernatural recourse to prevent suffering. We must be responsible for our own lives and have compassion for others. The Buddha taught, "Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
I really like a lot of what I’ve seen in Buddhism—most especially the perspective on suffering. But I find that there are sonorous parallels in Christianity as well. However, you must note that while Buddhism asserts that we must accept our suffering in this life, it also posits Nirvana and reincarnation—without which its teachings on suffering would, I think, be impotent.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
This was a very interesting article. However, I think that the warning of its “tenuous” nature would well be heeded. As it states, the conclusion is NOT that atheism produces these positive results, but that it is a result of them. I also find it VERY interesting that suicide is more prevalent in countries that lean more toward atheism. I find this interesting because that is what I predicted would be the logical entailment of atheism embraced to its logical conclusion. I have in another thread made my own suggestions of other possibilities that may have produced these results (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/7845). Also, I would suggest that while many people may say they are atheists, they stop at “I don’t believe in God” and don’t draw that logic out to its conclusion; instead they continue to accept (without thinking about it) many of the other customs and ways of life and thinking that were entailments of their shrugged-off theism.
For example. If I find myself caught in a blizzard, I may guess that I have a 1 in 20 chance of surviving. However, if I simply give in to the reality of the whirling wall of snow that surrounds me, it's quite likely I would freeze to death. However, if I hope that I might be that 1 in 20 who survives, then I may keep moving and eventually find shelter. This is in contrast with a theist who prays to God and has faith he will arrange for his survival. As a non-theist, I can have hope without resorting "faith" in a supernatural beings.
But that is with “surviving past the blizzard” as an option. If you believed that the blizzard was all that existed, what would you do? You would have no reason to do anything, and thus you would die. I would say that this is somewhat analogous to atheists un-belief in afterlife.
For example, unless I'm in a desperate situation where I don't have any other input or the results are not critical, I don't always trust my intuition. Only when my intuition has a reasonable track record in a particular context do I actually act on it. In other words, I pay attention to my intuition, but only to the degree in which it gives me good reason to do so. I look at culture the same way. Tradition gives us valuable information about how we interact with each other. But just because a tradition fills a particular cultural role, doesn't mean it fills that role effectively or might be better replaced with something else. Nor does it mean a tradition should expand beyond a concept into the realm of absolute truth.
I think we would agree in the premises, but conclude differently because of our presuppositions. For example, my culture and intuition has lead me to a belief in the God of Christianity, and even through long and scrupulous criticism of my faith, it has remained—not completely unchanged, but all of the central tenants of belief are still there. In my case, tradition and intuition has proven itself; I remain in equilibrium.
Nor does it mean a tradition should expand beyond a concept into the realm of absolute truth.
And yet it doesn’t rule out that possibility either; doesn’t even make it improbable in my opinion.
This is highly dependent on what you consider a biblically-based perspective. While some verses in the Bible seem to indicate that God does change his mind based on the actions of man or may not always know the future, these interpretations are highly disputed by those with a "Blueprint Worldview." The Bible seems to be paradoxical in that it could be interpreted to support both positions. Even if God didn't know exactly what was going to happen when he gave lucifer and man free will, it doesn't take a omniscient being to figure out that such action could result in disobedience. God would have known the risk but decided to make the choice anyway. I fail to see how changing what God does or does not know could make him immune to being responsible for the decisions he makes and actions he takes.
Oh, the perspective DEFINITELY has its opponents. In fact, Boyd was ousted from the Evangelical Theological Society because of it—except that the idiots voted on kicking him out before he even delivered his paper on the subject. Yet there are many, many theologians (even those who are not open theists) who accept this as a legitimate biblical perspective.
My response to ScottMax was not with reference to omniscience or foreknowledge. I would agree with you that he would know what *could* happen, even what is likely to happen. In either case, it would be argued that God would have seen it as worth the risk, that the benefits outweighed the detriments. Even without believing in God, atheists every day make the decision to go ahead and bring a child into this world full of suffering as well as pleasure. Why? Because they see that the possible good outweighs the possible bad.
In addition, the concept of Open Theism casts a significant shadow on God's sovereignty, his ability to make choices and provide guidance. I'd also note it would seem to conflict with the concept of prophecy.
I would disagree. It says nothing about his sovereignty. Process theology negates God’s sovereignty because there is no definite conclusion. In Open Theism, God has set forth, in his sovereignty, a definite conclusion. Boyd discusses all of these issues you raise. There are answers for them. If you’re really interested in learning more about it (especially with respect to the problem of evil), check out his books: God at War as well as Satan and the Problem of Evil.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
(as the post above, this is also moved from other forum)
Thanks for responding! Sorry I’ve been out for a while. (FYI: no need for a “sic”…“Ockham” is the proper spelling for the British city where William of Ockham was from…call me a purist…lol.)
I disagree. There is no baby hurling. You and I agree that Reality is transcendent to us in that there will always be questions that we cannot answer, things we will not understand. For example, we don’t understand where the laws of physics come from. I am basically saying the same thing about God. If the presupposition is that God created Reality, we should expect him to be even more transcendent than we find Reality. Thus there will be questions about God we will not be able to answer and things we will not be able to completely understand.
I think it is a mistake to assume: as we, so God. Who is to say what the consciousness of God is like?
I am not arguing that “we don’t really know anything.” I follow a Critical Realist epistemology which entails fallibilism, but not in the extreme sense of not being able to know anything. I do believe that we can know things, but we can only do so with a posture of epistemological humility. In that humble position, we must recognize (as we do) that foundationalism is an illusion. Descartes was wrong. There is no absolutely certain knowledge for finite knowers. What this means, then (I think) is that any “bottom-up” search for knowledge is ultimately an illusion because any “bottom” from which you start is not a true, presupposition-less “bottom.” In other words, presuppositions are necessary.
These presuppositions that we have are the starting point for the hermeneutical process we use to discern reality, and thus the process is a circular one. In his book Personal Knowledge (which I’m reading…it’s so good!) Polanyi points to the many factors that go into discerning reality. He says that it is necessary to have presuppositions to have knowledge, and that these presuppositions are the tools we use to discern reality. He claims that “objectivity” is ultimately a myth when it comes to discerning reality, and that even scientific rationality is cultural in origin. The traditional Eastern mindset for example, as I understand it, does not lend near the amount of creedence to logic and science as we do. There is more of an emphasis on experience and intuitive knowledge than we have.
Wherever we start with in our presuppositions, from that point our knowledge of reality is garnered through a hermeneutical spiral. We are constantly encountering data (i.e. experience, logic, research, feelings, etc.) with which we test our epistemological worldview. Some information fits with our worldview, and some doesn’t. However, we never immediately toss aside our worldview the second we encounter data that appears dissonant with our worldview. There is always a sort of “buffer” intrinsic to our worldview because of the recognition of our epistemological finitude (i.e. “simply because I don’t understand how this fits with my worldview does not mean that it cannot fit with my worldview”). However, the more and more we encounter dissonance with our worldview, the more apparent it becomes to us that our worldview does not fit with the world that is presented to us. At that point we either hone our current worldview, adapting it to the point that it does correspond with this reality, or else we toss it aside completely. This is the hermeneutical spiral.
In this way, then, in order to really understand a worldview such as Christianity, you must understand it from the inside. And this is understandably difficult since there are so many different perspectives within Christianity. Speaking as a Protestant Christian theologian-in-process, I can tell you that we would tend to say is that the epistemological “top” is ultimately fourfold: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. And this is the task of theology—to understand reality using those epistemological tools.
On a personal note, I’d like to share some of my background to elaborate on this process. I grew up a Christian in the Southern Baptist church and my father is a pastor. I went to a Christian college, and while at that college my first year I encountered quite a bit of dissonance to my Christian worldview. However, I also understood my own epistemological limitations (although I had no clue what the world “epistemological” meant…lol). I just knew that there were many people that I considered extremely intelligent and trustworthy (especially C.S. Lewis) that did not seem to find this dissonance I was looking at so grave as to toss aside the Christian worldview entirely. That was my “buffer.” However, I was extremely curious and interested in trying to find my own answers to these problems, so I decided to change my major to theology. I wanted to understand—to really, deeply understand—the perspective I was coming from before I tossed it aside and adopt another starting point for the hermeneutical spiral. The more and more I have studied theology, the more I have been able to find answers to these questions that I have had about my faith. And I have to tell you that I have yet to encounter the kind of cognitive (and emotional) dissonance that would demand that I toss my worldview aside. I have had to adjust many ways in which I understand my faith. Many of the doctrines I grew up assuming I have had to hone through critical examination of what Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience really teach me. But I have never had to toss it aside entirely. On the contrary, the more I understand my faith, the more the world makes sense. I’m astonished at how cohesively even some of the hardest questions seem to fit into this understanding of reality.
When I try to examine reality from the atheist perspective, it just doesn’t seem to make near as much sense of life and reality. Of course I haven’t spent as much time examining it and other persepectives as I have my own. Perhaps in the future I will encounter such dissonance that will demand me to more seriously examine other perspectives. But until the…why? That is not to say that I don’t look at other worldviews. But we only have so much “bandwidth” to do things in life, and we cannot spend all of our time examining other worldviews. This is another reason why presuppositions are important to life. Perhaps the ultimate presupposition is that life is to be lived, not merely thought about.
But in the end, I recognize that I am only a pilgrim. My understanding of reality is necessarily penultimate. And so I journey on.
First you must answer the question of whether or not what you would “like” to see is appropriate critera. But beyond that, what is “extraordinary”? And what criteria establishes something as “extraordinary”? And do you use the same criteria for one thing that you do another? For example, the criteria that establishes a work of art as “extraordinary” is different than what establishes a scientific theory as “extraordinary.” An extraordinary scientific theory is reductionistic. The more and more I learn about and experience the fine arts however, I find that the general consensus is that an extraordinary piece of art is elusive and defies reductionism. Does the question of God fall under the artistic or scientific criteria? Or should it lend itself to both? Rudolph Otto and Paul Tillich and others make some rather interesting connections between the artistic and religious experiences. Otto explains the non-reductionistic “numinous” nature of the religious experience in terms like “supra-rationality” and Tillich in terms like “ecstatic-reason.” Really interesting stuff…
One other thing that Polanyi and Critical Realism points to is the idea that the what seems to be the “highest” forms of truth are not reducible but elusive. For example, the laws of physics and mathematics are some of the highest forms of truth, the tools we use to determine reality… and yet they are elusive and not reducible in the sense that we cannot answer from whence they came. The most important truths, then, are tacit, elusive, and presupposed. If God existed, he certainly be one of the most important truths. As such, we are not surprised to find Him elusive and non-reductionistic.
One last thing that Polanyi speaks of is how natural theology and “proofs” for God are proofs from the inside the hermeneutical spiral. They make sense of the worldview from the inside, but they are not proofs from the outside, and they don’t necessarily need to be. In other words, “the proof is in the pudding.”
Ok… that was another really long post. I’m sorry! But I think an appropriate epistemological understanding is really important, obviously, if we are talking about knowledge of anything, much less knowledge of God. If you have a chance, check out Polanyi’s book Personal Knowledge. Also check out Rudolph Otto’s The Idea of the Holy. You can find them both in their full texts at Questia.com. Seriously intriguing stuff.
I hope to get to some of the other stuff you guys brought up later. Until then, take care!
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Sat, 2007-05-19 03:53 Scottmax response:
Scottmax,
Thanks again for your response. Sorry it’s taken me a while to get back with you on this. I just started a summer semester that’s going to kick my butt, but I want to keep this going as much as my time (and your time) allows.
Many of these epistemological issues I tried to address in the response post I made to miketwo. I know it is a long post, but it deals with quite a bit of the epistemological position I’m coming from right now. I’ll respond briefly to some of the above, but if you want more detail check out my other post.
First, you say that the “rational” thing to do is to start by rejecting presuppositions. You seem to advocate trying to achieve a tabula rasa from which to rationally determine your reality. The problem is that that quest is impossible, not just for people of faith but for people of science as well. You and I are both children of the Western Enlightenment and our presuppositions are shaped immensely because of this, often without our realizing. As our postmodern epistemologists have revealed to us, our scientific bent is a cultural phenomenon. How about creating “necessary distance required for objective evaluation” of science? Polanyi points out that it is simply impossible to objectively evaluate everything. Indeed the highest truths we cling to (e.g. scientific method, logic, etc.) are truths that we cannot objectively evaluate. They are truths that we must rely upon only tacitly and presuppose. That is our starting point. Christianity has its presuppositions as well that cannot necessarily be objectively evaluated. Rather than trying to achieve some kind of objective tabula rasa (which is impossible according to Critical Realism), it seems to make much more sense to start from the inside of a worldview, and then adapt it as cognitive, emotional, intuitive, and experiential dissonance demands of us.
Regarding “mystical events,” I touch on this too in my other post in the apparent connection between the ways of knowing we experience through the arts, and the ways of knowing we experience “mystically.” This connection between religion, myth, and art is particularly what I’m wanting to focus on and learn more about as I continue work on my M.Div. The Truth found in myth (see Joseph Campbell also Rudolph Bultmann) and art defies scientific-historical reductionism, just as does the ultimate Truth we must tacitly rely upon in science and logic. I’m not saying that its impossible to do such scientific tests of the paranormal or “mystical,” I just wouldn’t be incredibly surprised if it somehow resisted scientific reductionism as art seems to do.
Is it “equally likely to happen to atheists”? Do you have any data to back that up? Because all of the articles that I have ever seen regarding the health and mental well-being of people of faith vs. people not of faith unanimously point favorably to people of faith. Of course statistics and polls can often be deceiving. I’d be interested to see any information contrary to this.
A very sober point. But note that it is really an argument from emotion and intuition more than logic. Such argument does not, I think, make it invalid however. It is something that must be considered. It is part of the epistemological process. The thing is, however, that there are also other intuitive and emotional arguments that affirm existence of God. I honestly think it is ultimately a subjective combination of all these ways of knowing which land us where we end up in our worldview. There are many possible explanations of why a good God does not perform miracles more often than Christians claim he does, but in a situation like this it is not logical explanations that people really want—and this is ok. Nor is it what should be given to them. But there is room for this too in Christianity. That is what I love about the lament Psalms—a brutal honesty and confrontation with God in times of trouble, not the glib and chipper theological clichés all to prevalent in Christianity: “God has a plan” “he’s in a better place”…blah blah blah…whatever. “Shut the &%# up. I’m giving God the what-for,” the psalmist says.
But on what do you base this firm belief? The tradition of scientific method? And why on earth is it necessary to separate ourselves from what we hope is true? I “hope” that I am not a BIV. It seems to be the case of experience that rather than being something to be avoided, hope is necessary for survival—most especially for humanity. Maybe I’ll get more into that later. Very interesting stuff.
But the Christian epistemology I am working from suggests that if we are to arrive at truth, it should be done with ALL of the epistemological faculties that we have been given: not just science or logic, but them alongside of revelation, emotion, intuition, and (yes) cultural tradition. Why tradition? Because we are not only brains, we are relational creatures that depend upon each other.
I don’t think it is necessarily unexplainable. For example, Open Theism provides a very sound and biblically-based perspective on God that is not the “all-all” that we typically think of. Greg Boyd’s Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, particularly as it is seen in his book Satan and the Problem of Evil chapters 8-10, provide some extremely compelling explanations for nature being “red in tooth and claw.”
Yes, terrific reasoning potential under certain parameters—I would agree. But if God would necessarily be as “infinitely complex” as you stated earlier (citing Dawkins), how do you logically justify your disagreement? It is perfectly logically sound, so far as I can see, and you didn’t offer any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, those are rather huge parameters (an infinitely complex God), are they not?
Thanks again for discussing this with me. The posts are getting pretty long now. It just took me like 3 hours to write this. Needless to say, that's a lot to bat around. Perhaps we should try breaking it down into smaller chunks?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
If there was a God, I cannot believe he would give us reason and then reward us for favoring emotion over our highest mental faculty. I cannot believe that is the system he would create.
Christ=Logos=Logic
Its not about having "blind faith" it is about having faith in "Logic"
Calling Jesus Christ Logic is a bit like calling dog shit gourmet food.
Oh Really?
The LOGOS Became Flesh
1:1 In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, [1] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, [2] and his own people [3] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the LOGOS became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, [4] who is at the Father's side, [5] he has made him known.
Go do some research, LOGOS=LOGIC
Well, whatever the Bible says isn't valid. The Bible is bullshit.
I was just proving you wrong about Jesus Christ not being LOGIC, as I can see you do not understand the bible at all so your assumption that it is bullshit is obviously illogical, how can you call something bullshit without any understanding of it?
And yes I will not refer to the bible again, as with it we can not "prove" anything, only with "LOGIC" can we prove something.
So lets stick with "LOGIC".
Adding my 2 cents to the discussion...
In his book "The Evolving Self", Mihaly Csikszentmihaly devotes an entire chapter to this subject in which he identifies genetics, culture and ego as the three primary illusions that stand between us and the reality around us. While I agree that it is impossible to create a completely blank slate, I feel one can and must attempt to become aware of the "veils of maya" that cloud our vision. For example, it's impossible to ensure that jurors are completely unbiased on a particular case. However, this does not mean that the process of juror selection should be eliminated or that jurors access to the media should not be limited during the trial. Nor does it mean the Judge should not instruct the jurors to ignore evidence that is not relevant to the case at hand.
One of the major issues I have with most religions is their claim to contain absolute truth. I feel this is simply quite improbable. Even if it were true, how could we, human beings ever comprehend it? Instead, if one sees the universe as a series of concepts that have proven value in particular contexts, we can become more aware of the reality around us.
I strongly agree that we can learn much from the study of that which is defined as mystical, paranormal or expressed though the arts. However, I think the context in which these areas have value is limited to understanding our hopes, fears, dreams and the psychological and physiological effects of meditation on the mind. For example, it's been historically documented that humans have created Gods to explain things that we now know are natural forces, such as the sun. They have prayed and made sacrifices to these Gods in hope for a good harvest. When their crops were bountiful, they felt their prayers had been heard. But when their crops were thin or barren, they thought they had lost favor with God. However, In reality, we know their actions had no effect since the sun is not sentient and could not receive their worship. What does this say about man's psychological needs? How does man interpret if and how prayer is answered? When people pray and meditate the only reasonably predictable results we can observe are those which are limited to physiological and psychological influences on the mind. How does the activity of prayer and meditation effect our outlook, clarity of thought, our ability to manage stress, etc.? Again, I think these are all very important areas of study, but we disagree on the context in which the results are valid.
There are several studies that show countries that are primarily agnostic or atheistic have low levels of crime and similar if not better health and mental well being.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
See my response above. The value of studying these areas helps us understand our emotions and physiological needs, how we go about trying to meet these needs and which methods are successful and which actually produce tangible "better" results. If God truly is a "better" solution to these needs then the results should be self-evident. While God may somewhat put theists at ease with these situation, we do not see tangable results compaired to non-theists.
One of the reason I'm attracted to Zen Buddhism, from a purely philosophical position, is that is very practical. Suffering is part of life that we must deal with. While this does not mean we should give up, it means we must try to prevent needless suffering within the confines of impermanence and practical knowledge. There is no supernatural recourse to prevent suffering. We must be responsible for our own lives and have compassion for others. The Buddha taught, "Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Clearly, the focus here is on practical experience, results and action at the explicit expense of tradition and dogma.
If I may, I think Scott was trying to say we should separate ourselves from what we "want" to be true or what tradition tells us to believe from what we can objectively conceive may be true.
For example. If I find myself caught in a blizzard, I may guess that I have a 1 in 20 chance of surviving. However, if I simply give in to the reality of the whirling wall of snow that surrounds me, it's quite likely I would freeze to death. However, if I hope that I might be that 1 in 20 who survives, then I may keep moving and eventually find shelter. This is in contrast with a theist who prays to God and has faith he will arrange for his survival. As a non-theist, I can have hope without resorting "faith" in a supernatural beings.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all of these faculties are important, but their value is limited to specific contexts.
For example, unless I'm in a desperate situation where I don't have any other input or the results are not critical, I don't always trust my intuition. Only when my intuition has a reasonable track record in a particular context do I actually act on it. In other words, I pay attention to my intuition, but only to the degree in which it gives me good reason to do so. I look at culture the same way. Tradition gives us valuable information about how we interact with each other. But just because a tradition fills a particular cultural role, doesn't mean it fills that role effectively or might be better replaced with something else. Nor does it mean a tradition should expand beyond a concept into the realm of absolute truth.
This is highly dependent on what you consider a biblically-based perspective. While some verses in the Bible seem to indicate that God does change his mind based on the actions of man or may not always know the future, these interpretations are highly disputed by those with a "Blueprint Worldview." The Bible seems to be paradoxical in that it could be interpreted to support both positions. Even if God didn't know exactly what was going to happen when he gave lucifer and man free will, it doesn't take a omniscient being to figure out that such action could result in disobedience. God would have known the risk but decided to make the choice anyway. I fail to see how changing what God does or does not know could make him immune to being responsible for the decisions he makes and actions he takes.
In addition, the concept of Open Theism casts a significant shadow on God's sovereignty, his ability to make choices and provide guidance. I'd also note it would seem to conflict with the concept of prophecy.
Also, the "Warfare Worldview" seems to indicate that God is battling the forces of evil in our world. However, the Bible makes it very clear that God has the upper hand and that Christ will be victorious. But until Jesus returns to claim his victory, we suffer greatly. The casualties of this war are high. If God's victory is sure and our suffering is great, why would a loving God continue to wage this war? Why would he not end the conflict if he has the power to do so?
An infinitely complex God could look and act like anything - including nature. If we are going to have any kind of meaningful discussion about the probability of God's existence, we need to define God in some shape or form. If God specifically designed and created the universe, then inspired man to create the Bible, then nature and God's teachings to us would be natural starting points for evaluating God.
[edit : fixed spellcheck substitutions]
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.