RE: knowledge & proof [was "wee people"]

I believe that fasting loosens our filters, allowing more reality in.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:13 PM
To: dfwinterstein@msn.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: knowledge & proof [was "wee people"]

Don.

First, Descartes used /cogito/ because he was a rationalist. The
inexorable evidence to me of my existence comes to me with thought,
emotional feeling, sensation, memory--every experience. But I can't
demonstrate my existence to you. However, I cannot reasonably exist
without accepting what I cannot prove. Indeed, what I can prove apart
from the /cogito/ is conditional. I assume that my senses and those of
my fellow human beings are veridical, even though I recognize that there
are illusions, that there is electromagnetic radiation that I don't see
or feel, that some people are colorblind, etc. The common sense
assumptions and those underlying science provide a foundation for life
and study, though not strictly demonstrable.

When we move away from areas where we can tell each other "Look" or
"Measure," a different area of intellectual difficulty is found. For
example, Christian mystics usually encounter Christ or the Virgin in
their visions, but Jewish mystics never do. Why? Similar differences are
found with mystics from other groups. One factor which is common is that
many of the mystical experiences follow extended fasts. Does fasting
connect one to the spirit world or does it produce hallucinations--or
both? What strict proof can anyone offer?

I am committed to a deity who is omnipotent. This requires that he can
reach his creatures as he pleases--whether by circumstances, visions,
suggestions. All claims that God has spoken or led must be tested (I
John 4:1). I recall one chap who claimed to have the gift of prophecy.
He enrolled in a Bible school. After the first exam he complained, "That
test was so difficult I couldn't even prophesy the answers." To what
extent do you think God was involved?

Obviously, the total situation is complicated. There is a difference
between practical needs and strict proof. This has to do with human
finitude, which has been one of my emphases. Even mathematical proofs
are conditional, dependent on the set of axioms assumed. Consequently, I
have to live by faith, total commitment to what I cannot prove, often
cannot even understand. It is frustrating to recognize that truth is the
standard for all my thoughts, but that I cannot be certain that I have
attained that standard in any of them. I may be wrong despite my best
efforts.

Dave

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:47:02 -0800 "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:

        Dave,

        I acknowledge the validity and appropriateness of your views
when the target "audience" is the intellect. Philosophy dominantly
targets the intellect, but religion targets the whole person, the
spiritual person.

        I assert that whole persons in whom there is a balance between
gut and intellect are not going to question the existence of useful
knowledge or whether a world exists outside their psyches. Such people
daily use such knowledge to navigate such world, so such doubts as a
rule would seem ridiculous to them. Those who do question such things
are obviously allowing their intellects to dominate.

        Balance in all of us is in continuous flux: Sometimes the
intellect dominates, sometimes the belly, sometimes the genitals, etc.
When we do science or philosophy, the intellect dominates. When my own
intellect dominates, I can contemplate my religious experience somewhat
objectively. When I do, I recognize that it is unconventional and
therefore must be tested to see whether it might have been simply a
manifestation of some pathological condition and hence not genuine. It
would have been ridiculous to have tested it while it was going on. At
that time I was in balance as a whole, spiritual person. But when
intellect dominated afterwards, I recognized the possibility that I
could have been mistaken, so self-examination was appropriate.

        If I can satisfy myself intellectually that the experience was
not pathological but genuine, I can then allow myself to come back into
balance as a human being. As a balanced person not dominated by
intellect I then recognize that my sense of reality derives from
interactions with others (actually, with both persons and things) rather
than from contemplating my thinking.

        That said, I suspect I'm annoying you by saying such things, so
I don't expect your further response on this. But thanks for your
feedback. It's been more useful to me than you think, I'd guess.

        Don

         
Received on Mon Nov 8 14:47:14 2004