[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Lived Sense, a Part of Rational Experience.
Matthew LaPine has left a new comment on your post "Lived Sense, a Part of Rational Experience":
First to be fair when she talks in terms of "feeling of the stomach" she is talking about a complicated skill which could be developed better in some and worse in others which incorporates both rational argument and things hard-to-express-in-words like: does he shift his weight, does he look me in the eye. People couldn't express why they might be uneasy about this particular mechanic, but perhaps there are good reasons which are more a skill than a rational argument.
Also, FYI she says she's intentionally trying to be very readable since it is "for ordinary people". So her language is looser than it could/should be for serious debate.
I do get your point about "religious experience." Not only do I follow it, but I feel it from time to time. Meek does address this to a point. She addresses this in two places.
"What makes the question "Can we know God?" so provocative? To begin with, there's hardly a consensus on the answer, either for the affirmative or for the negative. And within the camp of those who say yes, no clear consensus can be found concerning the nature of the God we claim to know.
So much seems to challenge an affirmative answer. We're talking, after all, about knowing a being who isn't seen, touched, or heard. If someone reports in our hearing that he or she did see, touch, or hear God, we're likely to wonder about the legitimacy of their experience. The philosophical legacy of our times disposes people generally to discredit religious experience in contrast to sense experience, science, and ordinary rationality. In fact, it is quite common these days to discredit all claims to confident knowledge of any sort.
Saying no to the question, by the way, requires as much work to be shown as yes. A general disposition to discredit religious experience rests on just as many answers to other questions."
Then later,
"You may be protesting: 'But you can't touch God! You can touch your auto mechanic! The analogy doesn't hold water! I can know an auto mechanic. I have no clue who God is.' You're right: I could drive down to Jeff's garage and touch him. I can't do that with God. I think this will be helped if we talk about what goes on in the ordinary act of knowing, and what doesn't. Is touching, for example, necessary to knowing?
Let's also clarify what can be known of God if you do know him. If what the Bible says about God is true, knowing God involves, in part, knowing someone who has been here tangibly in the past, has told us about himself, who has gone away and promised to return. We are very much in an in-between time. The Bible speaks of our loving him whom we have not seen. It talks about our knowing now 'in part,' seeing 'but a poor reflection as in a mirror,' but then knowing 'face to face' 'fully, even as we are fully known.' Comparing apples and apples, this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, Jeff's mom telling me that he has gone to Europe for a visit, but that he promised to fix my car when he gets back."
Granted, I don't think Meek is exactly comparing "apples and apples" in this last illustration. There are striking differences. But I think it is important to note that Christian knowing is very much based on past "revelation" especially Jesus and the Bible. This is why we learn Greek and about textual criticism, we want to be sure we have a trustworthy "letter." And the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the most crucial aspect of the entire Christian faith. The Christian faith could have been based on a "spiritual resurrection", but the Bible claims it to have been a bodily one. All that the Palestinian Jews would have had to have done to destroy Christianity would be to produce the body of the so-called Christ.
But leaving that aside for a second. I think Meek's point is that most knowledge for "ordinary" people is not arrived at by well developed "rational argument". In fact, she says that to create a "rational argument" one already has to have reached a conclusion. We see a pattern then we describe it. She says, "to focus on a coherent pattern, one has to submit to its reality." I think this point is a good one. Everyone has epistemic questions which cannot be answered by "materialistic means." For instance, you are studying (from my recollection) the first epoch of the big bang. I would argue the question of origin is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. That isn't to say science has no bearing on the question. Science collects the facts, but it's interpretation of them is not repeatable, thus not verifiable, strictly speaking. Yet, one can buy into it with reasonable certainty because not only are there facts which seem to support it, but also because it fits into one's larger grid of reality (like if one agrees with Freud or Nietzsche). This point, it seems to me, is where the strength and weakness of Christianity lies. I would say the weakness is that Christianity is perhaps the most perverted worldview in the history of the world. It's own texts explain the cause for this; one of it's fundamental traits is the depravity of man (that man is basically bad, tending toward perversion and self-worship). The perversion of Christianity is seen very clearly in its self-righteous "professed" adherents. The whole point of Christianity is that favor with God cannot be earned. Yet, people continue to persist in drumming up long lists of how they can "please" (appease?) God and project these understandings on others (the whole problem with perverted Christianity in a democratic society). Yet, the cross says that God stepped into our world in real human form to free us from our self-worship and meaningless to change us back into what we were made to be, worshipers of God (the same reason we feel most exhilarated when we feel smallest, like standing on the top of a mountain, or gazing at the stars). At any rate, I think the power of the message of real Christianity fits with the grid of how I understand reality, and I don't see it as fundamentally irrational especially because of God's hand reaching into our world both with Christ, his word, and personal experience.
In summary when you say, "On the other hand, you do not agree about Scripture, because the claims made therein cannot be evaluated by either of you." I think Meek's whole point is that knowledge exists on an ordinary level that doesn't have to pass such rigorous standards of evaluation, but which we generally observe to be true. And my point is that I think she's right in this, and it's evidenced in part by why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Sorry this is long and probably difficult to follow. It has been difficult in this busy day to get my thoughts together and have time to type them.
Enjoy the discourse, hope all is well,
Matt
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 8:16 PM
First to be fair when she talks in terms of "feeling of the stomach" she is talking about a complicated skill which could be developed better in some and worse in others which incorporates both rational argument and things hard-to-express-in-words like: does he shift his weight, does he look me in the eye. People couldn't express why they might be uneasy about this particular mechanic, but perhaps there are good reasons which are more a skill than a rational argument.
Also, FYI she says she's intentionally trying to be very readable since it is "for ordinary people". So her language is looser than it could/should be for serious debate.
I do get your point about "religious experience." Not only do I follow it, but I feel it from time to time. Meek does address this to a point. She addresses this in two places.
"What makes the question "Can we know God?" so provocative? To begin with, there's hardly a consensus on the answer, either for the affirmative or for the negative. And within the camp of those who say yes, no clear consensus can be found concerning the nature of the God we claim to know.
So much seems to challenge an affirmative answer. We're talking, after all, about knowing a being who isn't seen, touched, or heard. If someone reports in our hearing that he or she did see, touch, or hear God, we're likely to wonder about the legitimacy of their experience. The philosophical legacy of our times disposes people generally to discredit religious experience in contrast to sense experience, science, and ordinary rationality. In fact, it is quite common these days to discredit all claims to confident knowledge of any sort.
Saying no to the question, by the way, requires as much work to be shown as yes. A general disposition to discredit religious experience rests on just as many answers to other questions."
Then later,
"You may be protesting: 'But you can't touch God! You can touch your auto mechanic! The analogy doesn't hold water! I can know an auto mechanic. I have no clue who God is.' You're right: I could drive down to Jeff's garage and touch him. I can't do that with God. I think this will be helped if we talk about what goes on in the ordinary act of knowing, and what doesn't. Is touching, for example, necessary to knowing?
Let's also clarify what can be known of God if you do know him. If what the Bible says about God is true, knowing God involves, in part, knowing someone who has been here tangibly in the past, has told us about himself, who has gone away and promised to return. We are very much in an in-between time. The Bible speaks of our loving him whom we have not seen. It talks about our knowing now 'in part,' seeing 'but a poor reflection as in a mirror,' but then knowing 'face to face' 'fully, even as we are fully known.' Comparing apples and apples, this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, Jeff's mom telling me that he has gone to Europe for a visit, but that he promised to fix my car when he gets back."
Granted, I don't think Meek is exactly comparing "apples and apples" in this last illustration. There are striking differences. But I think it is important to note that Christian knowing is very much based on past "revelation" especially Jesus and the Bible. This is why we learn Greek and about textual criticism, we want to be sure we have a trustworthy "letter." And the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the most crucial aspect of the entire Christian faith. The Christian faith could have been based on a "spiritual resurrection", but the Bible claims it to have been a bodily one. All that the Palestinian Jews would have had to have done to destroy Christianity would be to produce the body of the so-called Christ.
But leaving that aside for a second. I think Meek's point is that most knowledge for "ordinary" people is not arrived at by well developed "rational argument". In fact, she says that to create a "rational argument" one already has to have reached a conclusion. We see a pattern then we describe it. She says, "to focus on a coherent pattern, one has to submit to its reality." I think this point is a good one. Everyone has epistemic questions which cannot be answered by "materialistic means." For instance, you are studying (from my recollection) the first epoch of the big bang. I would argue the question of origin is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. That isn't to say science has no bearing on the question. Science collects the facts, but it's interpretation of them is not repeatable, thus not verifiable, strictly speaking. Yet, one can buy into it with reasonable certainty because not only are there facts which seem to support it, but also because it fits into one's larger grid of reality (like if one agrees with Freud or Nietzsche). This point, it seems to me, is where the strength and weakness of Christianity lies. I would say the weakness is that Christianity is perhaps the most perverted worldview in the history of the world. It's own texts explain the cause for this; one of it's fundamental traits is the depravity of man (that man is basically bad, tending toward perversion and self-worship). The perversion of Christianity is seen very clearly in its self-righteous "professed" adherents. The whole point of Christianity is that favor with God cannot be earned. Yet, people continue to persist in drumming up long lists of how they can "please" (appease?) God and project these understandings on others (the whole problem with perverted Christianity in a democratic society). Yet, the cross says that God stepped into our world in real human form to free us from our self-worship and meaningless to change us back into what we were made to be, worshipers of God (the same reason we feel most exhilarated when we feel smallest, like standing on the top of a mountain, or gazing at the stars). At any rate, I think the power of the message of real Christianity fits with the grid of how I understand reality, and I don't see it as fundamentally irrational especially because of God's hand reaching into our world both with Christ, his word, and personal experience.
In summary when you say, "On the other hand, you do not agree about Scripture, because the claims made therein cannot be evaluated by either of you." I think Meek's whole point is that knowledge exists on an ordinary level that doesn't have to pass such rigorous standards of evaluation, but which we generally observe to be true. And my point is that I think she's right in this, and it's evidenced in part by why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Sorry this is long and probably difficult to follow. It has been difficult in this busy day to get my thoughts together and have time to type them.
Enjoy the discourse, hope all is well,
Matt
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 8:16 PM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
8:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home