Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

*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.*

Then you need to read some more. Try "Five Views on Apologetics," and from
there back up into Alvin Platinga and Cornelius Van Til. (A good basic essay
by Platinga appears in "Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology"
published by Oxford). I think then you'd see the similarity between my
position and Phil's. Honestly, I can't understand how you can pronounce on
religious epistemology if you're not even familiar with one of the central
schools of thought.

*REality is something I haven't had great in depth conversations about*

And perhaps this is why your missing the point about "revelation" and
Buddhism, since what we are discussing here is epistemology, or how one can
"know" what is "real."

*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.' And it is not ok for
Mohammed to do the same and look to his god to authenticate his faith--here
again is what he said: "*

I don't think I said it's "not ok" for a Muslim to ground his epistemology
in his belief in Allah. First, you seem to assume there is nothing a Muslim
and a Christian could agree on about the nature of reality. I think that's
wrong. There's a significant amount we can agree on, including the vital
truths that there is a God who created us and that there are real moral laws
that govern our behavior. As to the specifics of Christian and Islamic
doctrine, I don't think the primary challenge to Islam from Christianity can
come on foundationalist epistemic grounds -- "my foundation for belief is
better than yours." I think it has to come from a comparison of the
coherency of each belief system and the nature of each belief system's view
of man and God. I also think there is a very important element of
evidentialism with regard to the work and person of Christ, which fits well
into the coherency epistemic system.

*I think you meant to use the word 'tripe'.*

No, I meant "trope," meaning "a commonly used set of scenes or plot device,"
used here, as it often is, to mean a tired, worn out line of argument.

*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?*

Natural law theory fits quite well with a coherency / web-based
epistemology.

*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.*

Here is at least one person who disagrees with you:
http://enteuxis.org/leifh/Sharing%20Christ%20in%20the%20Tibetan%20Buddhist%20World.doc
This is standard missiology for any culture, really. As for the ad hominem,
well, you don't know me or have any idea where I've been or what sorts of
work and ministry I've engaged in, and anyway it's tiresome that we can't
have a civil discussion even if we disagree.

*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.*

And now you're using the ad hominem to evade the problem with your
position. In fact, you provided a textbook example of how supposedly
nuetral "fact" statements are packed with theory (don't forget about the
calendar).

*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.*

Uh... ok. So that's a third ad hominem, or I guess a fourth, since there
are two in this one little paragraph. Why is this necessary?

On 5/28/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
> >>>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.'
>
> And it is not ok for Mohammed to do the same and look to his god to
authenticate his faith--here again is what he said: "13.43": And those
who disbelieve say: You are not a messenger. Say: Allah is sufficient as a
witness between me and you and whoever has knowledge of the Book.
>
> This is an important question. You said we could look to God, he says he
can look to his god. One is right one is wrong--you think it is he. Please
tell how you distinguish right from wrong in these kinds of claims.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>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.
>
Received on Mon May 29 12:14:35 2006