Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

>>>Hi Glenn, thanks for the response.  My overall comment -- it seems odd to me that you attack my position as "self-referential" but you applaud Phil's comments.  I think Phil and I largely are on the same page (Phil, correct me if I'm wrong).  My views on epistemology at this point in my life lean towards a Reformed presuppositional position with some elements of a coherency view.<<<<

 

I may be wrong, but I simply don't see your last answer, or this one either anywhere near Phil's position

 

 

>>>  The part of this Phil followed up on and you applauded I think was the Reformed presuppositional part.  So maybe you and I agree on more than it seems?  I'm curious, how would you define your epistemology?  And why is your epistemology any less self-referential than mine?  An epistemology based on sense data seems to me to be the ultimate in self-referential thinking, as it inevitably leads to solipsism. <<<<

 

I probably don't have a name for my views on epistemology. When I was taking logic etc in philosophy grad school, they didn't talk about Reformed presuppositional epistemology, so I have little idea of what it is you are trying to communicate with that name.  I doubt I could find the term in a modern philosophy book either. 

 

As to my views,Clearly I view observation and verification as extremely important. I was a YEC for 24 years of my adult life BECAUSE I avoided verification and falsification. I happen to believe that the non-yec Christians also largely engage in a game of non-verification by avoiding any form of concordism. The end result is the same--both YEC and non-YEC end up making the Bible something that is self-referential and tautological.

 

The charge is always (and erroneously) made that I am seeking proof and thus want to remove faith from the equation.  That is impossible to do. Concordism only allows a view to be true but it does not prove it to be true. Newton's ideas for 200 years or more concorded with reality, but it wasn't the correct view. It worked well but Einstein concorded better and now GR is the thing to believe.  But, if the higher dimensions people talk about with ekpyrotic theory are true, then even Einstein will be found wanting and his theory will need revision.  Concordism doesn't prove something. BUT LACK OF CONCORDISM PROOVES SOMETHING WRONG.

 

That last sentence sums up my approach to epistemology.  It is easy to prove something wrong--find where it doesn't concord.  But concordance doesn't prove it true. One can't prove something is actually true.

 

 

>>>>As to Buddhism and progressive revelation, my comment was more to the defintion of "revelation."  I don't think Buddhists would use that term the way we Christians would.  We understand "revelation" as God proclaiming or disclosing to us elements of an ontological Truth that transcends us and in some respects is beyond us.  When we speak of "progressive revelation," we mean that God is building upon what He previously has disclosed about that external ontological reality.  The Buddhist world view, as I understand it, is that what we perceive as "reality" is essentially illusory, and that an individual who receives "revelation" or "enlightenment" is moving towards personally transcending the captivity of sensual reality to become one with the cosmos.  So, yes, a Buddhist's experience of "revelation" or "enlightenment" can progress, but that has nothing to do, I think, with the Christian understanding of "progressive revelation." 

<<<<<

 

From what I can see, Buddhism here is a lot different than what I read in the textbooks.  It is far more polytheistic.  As explained to me there is Buddha past, Buddha present and Buddha future.  Below them are the gods (and boy are there a lot of them). REality is something I haven't had great in depth conversations about, but I don't see people denying reality I think they view the world as two sides of the coin the material side and the ultimate reality side. In some ways, I would agree that it is a bit similar to the christian science view, but a bit more solid than them.

 

Now, revelation has changed as Buddhism has evolved. No one seems bothered by this so progressive revelation seems part of the landscape here. One needs to hear from the adherents about the various schools and how those beliefs changed and evolved to get a feel of how they view it.

 

 

 

>>>And the reason the Dahli Lama can accomodate evolution, or Christianity, or anything else, isn't because a transcendant, individual God has revealed something new about it, but because for the Buddhist, all of these things, like the rest of "reality," is essentially meaningless and illusory and something ultimately to be transcended.  Buddhism can accomodate any religious view because none of it ultimately is real -- all of it is simply part of a path towards losing the self and transcending "reality," which includes transcending the very views that have been absorbed. <<<<

 

I actually wasn't speaking of progressive revelation about things material. I was speaking of progressive revelation of things eternal and metaphysical.  I mean Avalokiteshvara was a god formed by the tears of a man. He wasn't there, now he is. That is a progressive revelation.

 

 

>>>>As to Islam, yes Islam appropriates parts of the Christian and Jewish traditions, but again, not in a way that builds on or fullfills them.  We accept the OT portrayal of God as true but incomplete, to be completed in Christ.  Islam doesn't view Mohammed as a completion of Christ, but simply rejects the divinity of Christ.  That's a horse of a different color, IMHO. <<<

 

You haven't answered my question. Why is it ok for you to claim as you did: 'We look to our belief in Christ to authenticate our faith in the trustworthiness of God's written revelation despite our present difficulties with Genesis.'

 

 

>>>As to why God stopped revealing Himself in 33 A.D., I don't think that's the case.  He did, I believe, stop providing authoritative, written revelation after the last of the Apostolic letters were written.  But He continues to reveal Himself in the life and witness of the Church.  This is also an important point, I think:  the tradition is not static, but is part of a constant dialogue as the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the Church.  Again, this reflects the incarnational nature of God's revelation.  We worship a living savior, not a book, and we do so from within a community of living people in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.  The book provides the norms for our community, but it shouldn't itself be the locus of our community.  The locus of our community is Christ.  (Here I draw quite a bit on Stan Grenz's "Beyond Foundationalism"). <<<<

 

 

But you didn't answer the question. Why is it ok for you to use the methodology you did and wrong when Mohammed does the very same thing?

 

>>>>As to the "Klingon War God" trope, this circles back to my Reformed epistemology.  Yes, along with Phil, I would have to affirm that I have some knowledge of God that most mortals don't have.  And so do you, and so does everyone else on this list who is a Christian.  That's a thoroughly Biblical notion -- such knowledge comes by God's grace, through the Holy Spirit.  It requires and is susceptible to no prior authentication, though it is consistent with other evidences.  It simply is. <<<<

 

 

I think you meant to use the word 'tripe'.  Anyway,  you have again reiterated Mohammed's methodology but failed to justify why your use is ok and his is wrong.

 

 

>>>I would also say this, though, along with Anselm:  if you try to conceive of a being you would call "God," I don't believe you end up with a Klingon War God.  The notion of God is a being that is infinite and perfect, which obviously a Klingon War God is not.  I also think Acquinas' arguments from natural law have some persuasive force, and again, if you try to account for the source of the moral impetus in human beings, you don't end up with a Klingon War God.  (Yes, I know, people historically have been war-like, but the moral impetus includes mercy and love, not things Khan and Warf and the other great Klingon warriors of the past were known for.) <<<

 

 

Well, at least here you do appeal to evidence and observation in you citation of Aquinas (not Acquinas). Why would you appeal to observation, when you have been arguing against it here?

 

>>>>As to God speaking through Yak Butter traditions, why are you so sure God isn't speaking through them at all?  Missiologists have long recognized that God places markers in different cultures that prepare the culture for the time when the Gospel is brought to them.  Certainly God can and does use non-Biblical cultural stories and practices to convey truths that prepare people for the Gospel. <<<<<

 

 

I am sorry, but if one actually sees Tibetan buddhism, one can't possibly believe what you say. The above, to me, is the view of an armchair theorist who hasn't left the couch yet.  Tibetan buddhism isn't a preparation for anything except Tibetan buddhism.

 

>>>As to "the sky is blue here in Beijing today, Monday May 27," why did you choose the Roman calendar instead of the Chinese calendar, or the Jewish calendar, or some other calendar?  "Monday May 27" isn't an "absolute truth," its a cultural marker.  Clearly, then, your "observation" that it is "Monday May 27" is deeply theory-laden.  And why did you use the English word "blue?"  What shade of "blue?"  At what wavelength are the waves of light striking your eyes (and are they waves or particles or both?).  When you say the "sky is blue," that conveys to me that it is a pleasant day there.  Is that what you meant?  Or are you a farmer who is desparately hoping for rain, such that the blue sky is a curse and not  blessing.  Again, lots of theory to be unpacked there. <<<

 

I see you went around the block to avoid the point. The game you play is a way for people to sound erudite, when they aren't.  The fact that you understood my point enough to try to unpack it proves my point--there isn't a lot of unpacking to do with a statement of the sky is blue. The point was, the sky is blue. It is today as well.  It is a fact regardless of the precise wavelength of the blue, which always varies from zenith to horizon, and from daylight to dark, so all shades of blue, all wavelengths.  You can't find much yellow in the sky except when looking directly at the sun, which you seem to be doing.

 

As to the question of whether the day is pleasant or not, pleasant is a subjective point, and I didn't use the term, you did. I stated merely an observation of the color of the sky. I didn't get into feelings. Frankly, I think this game of unpacking many people play today is not very intelligent. It frankly looks silly. Science has evolved a language to be precise. When I say there is a 4-way anticlinal structure at this point on earth, every geologist will know what I mean. There is no silly (and obnoxious) questions about  which earth, what do you mean by earth, what do you mean by structure, what do you mean by anticlinal. This is a game for 6 year olds akin to the 'why' game they play. It is trivial and of no value. Play it if you will, but I think it is the mere obfuscation of children. Sorry to be harsh, but I don't have time for that kind of silliness. it is post-modern tripe! (note I did use the correct word)

 

And such obfuscation is another reason your responses are no where in the same class as Phil's responses.  By the way, it is Aquinas.