Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

*Our interaction with the world around us,
and I mean this in both directions, makes us who we are
and forms all of our a priori knowledge.*

But what room does this leave for any interaction with God -- including
saving grace and the work of the Holy Spirit?

On 3/20/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> There is emerging evidence to support the idea that
> "intuitive" knowledge is correlated with brain states, and
> over the next few days I will try to gather information on
> that.
>
> The degree that these are from evolutionary history could
> be very small. But I am not talking about "empirical
> observations" this implies that it is conscious and
> involves reason to some degree. I would prefer the term
> "experience". Our interaction with the world around us,
> and I mean this in both directions, makes us who we are
> and forms all of our a priori knowledge.
>
> This idea is just as consistent with Christianity, as a
> materialist view of personhood is, and is probably just
> another perspective of viewing the same phenomenon.
>
> And, if this makes my point clearer, I am not a
> presuppositionalist.
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:58:09 -0400
> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even if all prior intiutions could be particularly
> >correlated with brain
> > states that in turn could be particularly correlated
> >with identifiable
> > genetic and environmental factors -- propositions that
> >never been
> > demonstrated and that there is good reason to doubt --
> >why should we stop
> > thinking of them as "prior intuitions?" If an intuition
> >is rooted in deep
> > evolutionary history, it is so far removed from an
> >"empirical observation"
> > that thinking of it as some kind of empirical data point
> >seems to stretch
> > the concept of empiricism to the point of becoming
> >meaningless. Either that
> > or you are heading in the direction of a materialst
> >epistemology that denies
> > any true "knowledge" and opts instead for mere
> >pragmatism.
> >
> > On 3/20/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com
> ><drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My opinion on this is that there are no a priori
> >> intuitions. Kant is wrong. Any a priori intuitions
> >>which
> >> might seem to exist are from "hard wiring" in the brain.
> >> Where does this "hard wiring" come from? It is
> >> genetically determined for the most part, and some
> >> environmental influence during development.
> >>
> >> So our hardwiring is based on our experiences in part.
> >> What about the genetic component? That is also based on
> >> experience, not the experience of the individual, but
> >>the
> >> collective experience of our predecessors that had genes
> >> that determine brain structure selected via
> >>survivability.
> >>
> >> So any innate or a priori intuitions are based on
> >> experience either personally, or collectively through
> >> evolution.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:02:01 -0400
> >> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Just a little more on Kant, sense impressions, and
> >> >empiricism, which I
> >> > happend to see in an article on strategic management
> >> >that turned up in some
> >> > research I'm doing on a completely unrelated law paper
> >> >about trade secrets (
> >> > J.C. Spender, *Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic
> >> >Theory of the Firm*,
> >> > 17 Strategic Management Journal 45-62 (1996)). This
> >> >article is about moving
> >> > away from the positivist epistemology that underlies
> >> >most contemporary
> >> > theories of the firm (and my current legal scholarship
> >> >is about moving away
> >> > from the positivist empistemology that underlies most
> >> >contemporary
> >> > intellectual property theory). Anyway, here's the bit
> >> >about Kant:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As realists, we assume reality exists and is knowable.
> >> > As empiricists, we
> >> > assume that our knowledge corresponds to reality. As
> >> >rationalists, we
> >> > assume reality's structure is logical. All these
> >> >positions neglect the
> >> > essence of the Kantian critique which is that our
> >> >knowledge is constructed
> >> > from sense impressions and cannot, therefore, tell us
> >> >anything about a
> >> > reality beyond those impressions. While Kant believed
> >> >that our experience
> >> > was shaped by reality, our knowledge of it was based
> >>on
> >> >a priori intuitions
> >> > and consequently delimited by the available categories
> >> >of human
> >> > comprehension. Later philosophers, extending the
> >> >position which Kant opened
> >> > up, argued that the basis of our interpretation of our
> >> >experience is as
> >> > likely to be in the soft structures of subjective
> >> >perception as it is in the
> >> > hard reality within which we presume we are contained.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ibid. at p. 48
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3/20/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> To be honest, I'm not happy with the concept of
> >> >>"Knowledge", and the idea
> >> >> that you can KNOW something is right anyway. What
> >>does
> >> >>it mean? All it can
> >> >> mean is that a fact is determined to be true with
> >> >>probability 1.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a Bayesian, I would say that one has a prior
> >> >>probability (prior belief)
> >> >> that is then either reinforced or lessened in the
> >>list
> >> >>of evidence
> >> >> observed. I'm not sure what it is that Glenn wants
> >>to
> >> >>KNOW. To "know" that
> >> >> God exists is to be excused having faith. Glenn's
> >> >>observation that
> >> >> Christians seemed to be happy (I know of at least one
> >> >>Christian who has
> >> >> expressed suicidal thoughts to me so they clearly
> >> >>weren't happy), was an
> >> >> empirical observation that influenced his beliefs.
> >> >>
> >> >> For some reason (probably irrelevant) T.S. Eliot
> >>comes
> >> >>to mind:
> >> >>
> >> >> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> >> >> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
> >> >>
> >> >> (Ash Wednesday).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Iain
> >> >> On 3/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *You said what basis was there for becoming a
> >> >>christian. That isn't the
> >> >> > same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it
> >>is
> >> >>right--that is why it
> >> >> > is called faith.*
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Very fair point. OTOH, you didn't really KNOW that
> >> >>those Christians
> >> >> > were happy, either. The best you could really say
> >>is
> >> >>that it *seemed to
> >> >> > you* that they were happy, since happiness is the
> >> >>interior state of an
> >> >> > "other" to which you don't have access. Lots of
> >> >>people seem to be happy but
> >> >> > really aren't -- even lots of Christians. So
> >>you're
> >> >>still back to some
> >> >> > non-empirical foundational assumptions that, in
> >>this
> >> >>instance, supported
> >> >> > your belief that the happiness you seemed to be
> >> >>observing in these
> >> >> > Christians in some way really reflected their
> >>interior
> >> >>states.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Iain wrote:
> >> >> > > >>Yes and I've read books on the evidence for the
> >> >>resurrection, and
> >> >> > > I've read atheist websites dissing the whole
> >>concept
> >> >>as a myth. At the end
> >> >> > > of the day you have to decide which one you're
> >>going
> >> >>to believe, and that
> >> >> > > belief is based on conviction and the work of the
> >> >>Holy Spirit, and not on
> >> >> > > empirical evidence alone, although it's true that
> >> >>empirical observations may
> >> >> > > incline one towards belief. <<<
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So have I read both sides, and that is why I tend
> >>to
> >> >>look for
> >> >> > > verification elsewhere than at the resurrection.
> >>And
> >> >>then I get criticized
> >> >> > > for doing so upon this list and told how I should
> >> >>rest it all at the cross,
> >> >> > > which as you note, one can read both sides of the
> >> >>issue. Maybe some others
> >> >> > > should read those atheist sites to see how
> >> >>epistemologically insecure their
> >> >> > > belief is.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And to address the issue of this thread, one must
> >> >>distinguish what you
> >> >> > > asked from 'knowing'. You said what basis was
> >>there
> >> >>for becoming a
> >> >> > > christian. That isn't the same as saying I KNOW
> >>it
> >> >>is right. One believes it
> >> >> > > is right--that is why it is called faith.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > glenn
> >> >> > > They're Here: The Pathway Papers
> >> >> > > Foundation, Fall, and Flood
> >> >> > > Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > *From:* Iain Strachan [mailto:
> >> >>igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> >> >> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:01 AM
> >> >> > > *To:* Glenn Morton
> >> >> > > *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> >> >> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] The empirical basis of
> >> >>knowledge
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net
> >>>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > For Iain, Merv, David Siemans, David W.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Iain Strachan wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >>>What empirical basis is there in the
> >>decision
> >> >>to become a
> >> >> > > > Christian? At the end of the day, one may see
> >> >>evidence that pulls you in
> >> >> > > > that direction, but the crucial deciding factor
> >> >>was (I always understood)
> >> >> > > > conviction by the Holy Spirit. How do you
> >>measure
> >> >>that empirically? How do
> >> >> > > > you measure a "leap of faith" empirically? <<<
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > In my personal case, it was empirically obvious
> >> >>that the Christians
> >> >> > > > were happy, I wasn't and I wanted what they
> >>had.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Yes,
> >> >>it's empirically
> >> >> > > obvious that Christians are happy, but that
> >> >>observation doesn't lead
> >> >> > > logically to the KNOWLEDGE that Christianity is
> >> >>true. People can be happy
> >> >> > > because of a self-delusion. In the end you had
> >>to
> >> >>make a step of faith (as
> >> >> > > did I) because you believed that the reason they
> >> >>were happy was because
> >> >> > > Christianity was true - that the difference it
> >>made
> >> >>in their lives wasn't
> >> >> > > just a placebo effect.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Some will say that the empirical data for the
> >> >>resurrection is good
> >> >> > > enough for them, for indeed, with out that
> >>empirical
> >> >>claim of a risen Lord,
> >> >> > > Christianity would have been still borne.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Iain
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> -----------
> >> >> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the
> >> >>same box.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Italian Proverb
> >> >> -----------
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 20 14:39:55 2007