knowledge & proof [was "wee people"]

Dave,

I'm not sure what you mean by "'knowledge' in a strict philosopher's sense."

Some facts are shareable--e.g., physical constants--because people can do their own measurements. Knowing such constants would certainly constitute knowledge by most standards. My dividing line comes between knowledge that is shareable and knowledge that is by its nature subjective. The stuff of knowledge includes facts, abstract relationships (explanations, etc.) and personal relationships. By a "shareable" fact I mean one that can in principle be accessed independently of a particular person's psyche.

From experience I know that God exists as firmly as I know I exist. So I claim to have proof of God's existence. This experience by its nature is not shareable, so people can benefit from my witness only if they believe me. They can never have my experience, so they can have neither my (subjective) knowledge nor my proof.

In order to prove anything, the person to whom you are attempting to prove the thing must accept your axioms and presuppositions. For a proof to be truly objective--valid for all imaginable audiences--it should require no axioms or presuppositions. But communication in the ordinary sense is impossible without such, so there can be no proof without such. This is saying that there is no such thing as objective proof of any kind unless there is also an agreed-upon set of basic assumptions.

If you can get someone to accept your assumptions, you may be able to prove to him that God exists just as the medieval scholastics did, not so? I've observed that people usually undermine proofs by challenging the (usually unstated) assumptions.

Not that any objective proof of God's existence would have any value. St. Anselm claimed the value of logical proofs was not to convince but to "gladden the understanding." These days we'd simply suspect that one or another of our assumptions might prove unfounded, because we know philosophy is a weak reed to lean on.

(Are we playing in the same ballpark?)

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
  To: dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 6:45 PM
  Subject: Re: The wee people

  Don,
  I evidently should have explained that I used "knowledge" in a strict philosopher's sense. The common definition (inadequate) is "justified true belief." I have no objection to a looser sense, indeed, am happy to speak of scientific knowledge while recognizing that it may change, though truth is one and unchanging. I should add that there is a relevant difference between the knowledge (loose sense) that may be transmitted from person to person and the inner witness God grants us.

  I say dogmatically that there is no proof of God's existence. Yes, there are evidences, and there are claimed proofs. But some years back I pointed out the hole in a claimed proof. ("A Response to Williams' Theistic Argument," Bulletin of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, 15:37-41 (1992)).The literature contains discussions of the holes in the standard arguments. In the absence of proof we do not know (strict sense) that God exists. Therefore the life of the Christian is one of faith, not knowledge. Note the term "believer" and II Corinthians 5:7. It is Gnostics who claim to know, to have penetrated to esoteric knowledge of ultimate reality.
  Dave
Received on Mon, 1 Nov 2004 01:57:10 -0800