Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

The same place that God interacts with all of creation.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:39:28 -0400
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> *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 14:56:56 2007