[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":
Jeff,
Sorry this has taken so long. A note first: to be clear I had originally asked for your critique of the sections of the book. I am beginning to see that this will be difficult without getting a more complete picture of what Meek is saying. I think we'll perhaps be rabbit trailing off into deeper discussions which are fine with me, but perhaps we can do that over coffee the next time I'm in the cities.
I do think part of my original question is how you interact with postmodernism in general. And maybe that will be a conversation over coffee. But I have appreciated you answers.
Now to your responses.
I think you just expressed those in words. I think that these sorts of instincts are really just rational faculties so ingrained that we don't think about them on a higher level. It doesn't make them magical in any way; rather, this "gut" distrust of the shady mechanic is perhaps more like appetite - we don't think, "gee, I haven't eaten in x hours so I should eat", we just feel hungry.
Yes I agree. But I think you would also have to agree that this process isn't always very well reasoned out. In other words, so people are just bad at "knowing" and others are better at it. The overall point is to take knowing from a vacuum and put it back where it always is, the knower. Furthermore, perhaps I can explain why I think someone makes a particular decision or knows something but they may not always be able to explain it and I may be wrong. I think she's just trying to be realistic about the complexity of knowing – and I think postmoderns would agree. And finally, when you stop to think about it, there are countless numbers of questions which you claim to have answers to which are a direct inference from a non-verifiable belief, that's just life.
This is a common sentiment among theologians and believers in general, and I think that it's a very striking logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person who introduces the idea; it doesn't get to be true by default.
Historically speaking is the idea of atheism earlier than theism? Where did this idea of theism come from? I'm not going to allow atheism to be our scientific presupposition, if theism can't be. People have always been asking where did we come from and only more recently did naturalism have a halfway rational answer to this. But her point is that if one HAS to show ALL of his/her work then both atheist/theist should have to show it. But at any rate there are deeper issues there and I understand your critique.
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."
I think this is clever rhetorically but she still doesn't bridge the gap here between material and immaterial.
I already mentioned there were flaws with her analogy, but I do think you have to deal with the Christ and his claims.
I read this as her saying that most decisions are not arrived by rational argument, which may very well be true. But I don't think this is a free "out" from the rigors of academic thinking.
Yes, but the even the rigors of academic thinking have to begin by supposing there is or there isn't a God. I'm all for people having a reason for what they believe, and I'm probably more uncomfortable with religious experience than some. But academic thinking cannot prove certain epistemic questions.
I'm ok with this - this is philosophy. But if you claim to have an answer to a question that can't be answered by empirical evidence or logical thinking, then you're selling snake-oil. "Faith" is a cop-out, to me.
This hits at the very crux of what Meek is saying and I'm glad you said it this way. When you say "answer" you mean verifiably certain scientific fact, no? The point of what Meek is saying (and also what postmodern deconstructionists) is that knowledge doesn't work this way. For one thing, almost no one can verify what they know. We're all taking someone's word for it. Second, even if we think we "know" something we have the trouble of expressing it in words. Not only are there limitations to what we can express but what do words mean, except that which has been agreed upon by a certain cultural grouping. Under close certainty, with no universals, truth loses. Now, in the scientific world postmodernists don't make any sense because we know that water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The line between truth and fiction is a very defined one. Yet, why hasn't this translated over to epistemic questions? Atheistic philosophers have produced some of the bleakest, most self-absorbed philosophy out there. Simply saying "there is no God" has done nothing for their ability to answer their own epistemic questions. What atheistic philosopher hasn't committed suicide? I'm reading Naseau by Sarte right now. If you're looking for a great light hearted read… At any rate, the point is Christians claim they have the answer. But they can't prove it in the sense you require. But don't accuse all Christians of selling snake oil.
I'll be honest with you, part of the reason I am a Christian is because I see the simplicity and beauty in the Christian message, there's wisdom in it. Einstein said something similar to this about looking for and expecting to find beauty and simplicity in natural law. Additionally, I have about the best marriage I could ever imagine. It answers my epistemic questions. Furthermore, I would argue it doesn't contradict science. For more on this see Alvin Plantiga (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Alvin+Plantinga+Norton&btnG=Google+Search, professor at Notre Dame).
Not all interpretations of the facts are created equally; logical positivism is valid because it is functional, it has succeeded in teaching us about the universe and eventually closes in on the right answers. If people had terrible interpretations of the facts (eg, Newton's apple tells him that invisible monkeys make things fall by throwing them at the ground, rather than that massive bodies attract each other with a force that's proportional to the inverse of their distance squared), science would be divergent and incoherent - the fact that it begins to form a structure tells us our interpretations aren't always correct at first, but begin to be correct as we learn more.
This is interesting. I wonder though have we closed in on the right answers in some areas while further distancing ourselves from them in others? Consider crime rates, rising or falling? If I had time, I'd like to hear more on this from you. I'd like to hear how your philosophy works out. Perhaps coffee again…
why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Ah, well, by virtue of using a computer, you also believe in - or I would say accept - naturalism!
This is where you are wrong. I have a Mac. God runs my computer. :) jk
But in all seriousness, I've never met a Christian who denies the validity science. Only those who are accused of it (or have uneducated opinions). The difference lies in the presuppositions address in plantinga's lectures at the link I gave you.
It's been fun. Thanks again. Good luck with the studies.
Matt
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10:28 AM
Jeff,
Sorry this has taken so long. A note first: to be clear I had originally asked for your critique of the sections of the book. I am beginning to see that this will be difficult without getting a more complete picture of what Meek is saying. I think we'll perhaps be rabbit trailing off into deeper discussions which are fine with me, but perhaps we can do that over coffee the next time I'm in the cities.
I do think part of my original question is how you interact with postmodernism in general. And maybe that will be a conversation over coffee. But I have appreciated you answers.
Now to your responses.
I think you just expressed those in words. I think that these sorts of instincts are really just rational faculties so ingrained that we don't think about them on a higher level. It doesn't make them magical in any way; rather, this "gut" distrust of the shady mechanic is perhaps more like appetite - we don't think, "gee, I haven't eaten in x hours so I should eat", we just feel hungry.
Yes I agree. But I think you would also have to agree that this process isn't always very well reasoned out. In other words, so people are just bad at "knowing" and others are better at it. The overall point is to take knowing from a vacuum and put it back where it always is, the knower. Furthermore, perhaps I can explain why I think someone makes a particular decision or knows something but they may not always be able to explain it and I may be wrong. I think she's just trying to be realistic about the complexity of knowing – and I think postmoderns would agree. And finally, when you stop to think about it, there are countless numbers of questions which you claim to have answers to which are a direct inference from a non-verifiable belief, that's just life.
This is a common sentiment among theologians and believers in general, and I think that it's a very striking logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person who introduces the idea; it doesn't get to be true by default.
Historically speaking is the idea of atheism earlier than theism? Where did this idea of theism come from? I'm not going to allow atheism to be our scientific presupposition, if theism can't be. People have always been asking where did we come from and only more recently did naturalism have a halfway rational answer to this. But her point is that if one HAS to show ALL of his/her work then both atheist/theist should have to show it. But at any rate there are deeper issues there and I understand your critique.
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."
I think this is clever rhetorically but she still doesn't bridge the gap here between material and immaterial.
I already mentioned there were flaws with her analogy, but I do think you have to deal with the Christ and his claims.
I read this as her saying that most decisions are not arrived by rational argument, which may very well be true. But I don't think this is a free "out" from the rigors of academic thinking.
Yes, but the even the rigors of academic thinking have to begin by supposing there is or there isn't a God. I'm all for people having a reason for what they believe, and I'm probably more uncomfortable with religious experience than some. But academic thinking cannot prove certain epistemic questions.
I'm ok with this - this is philosophy. But if you claim to have an answer to a question that can't be answered by empirical evidence or logical thinking, then you're selling snake-oil. "Faith" is a cop-out, to me.
This hits at the very crux of what Meek is saying and I'm glad you said it this way. When you say "answer" you mean verifiably certain scientific fact, no? The point of what Meek is saying (and also what postmodern deconstructionists) is that knowledge doesn't work this way. For one thing, almost no one can verify what they know. We're all taking someone's word for it. Second, even if we think we "know" something we have the trouble of expressing it in words. Not only are there limitations to what we can express but what do words mean, except that which has been agreed upon by a certain cultural grouping. Under close certainty, with no universals, truth loses. Now, in the scientific world postmodernists don't make any sense because we know that water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The line between truth and fiction is a very defined one. Yet, why hasn't this translated over to epistemic questions? Atheistic philosophers have produced some of the bleakest, most self-absorbed philosophy out there. Simply saying "there is no God" has done nothing for their ability to answer their own epistemic questions. What atheistic philosopher hasn't committed suicide? I'm reading Naseau by Sarte right now. If you're looking for a great light hearted read… At any rate, the point is Christians claim they have the answer. But they can't prove it in the sense you require. But don't accuse all Christians of selling snake oil.
I'll be honest with you, part of the reason I am a Christian is because I see the simplicity and beauty in the Christian message, there's wisdom in it. Einstein said something similar to this about looking for and expecting to find beauty and simplicity in natural law. Additionally, I have about the best marriage I could ever imagine. It answers my epistemic questions. Furthermore, I would argue it doesn't contradict science. For more on this see Alvin Plantiga (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Alvin+Plantinga+Norton&btnG=Google+Search, professor at Notre Dame).
Not all interpretations of the facts are created equally; logical positivism is valid because it is functional, it has succeeded in teaching us about the universe and eventually closes in on the right answers. If people had terrible interpretations of the facts (eg, Newton's apple tells him that invisible monkeys make things fall by throwing them at the ground, rather than that massive bodies attract each other with a force that's proportional to the inverse of their distance squared), science would be divergent and incoherent - the fact that it begins to form a structure tells us our interpretations aren't always correct at first, but begin to be correct as we learn more.
This is interesting. I wonder though have we closed in on the right answers in some areas while further distancing ourselves from them in others? Consider crime rates, rising or falling? If I had time, I'd like to hear more on this from you. I'd like to hear how your philosophy works out. Perhaps coffee again…
why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Ah, well, by virtue of using a computer, you also believe in - or I would say accept - naturalism!
This is where you are wrong. I have a Mac. God runs my computer. :) jk
But in all seriousness, I've never met a Christian who denies the validity science. Only those who are accused of it (or have uneducated opinions). The difference lies in the presuppositions address in plantinga's lectures at the link I gave you.
It's been fun. Thanks again. Good luck with the studies.
Matt
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10:28 AM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
10:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home