Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

*The same place that God interacts with all of creation.*

That would seem to me to present a major theological problem. God
"interacts" with the rest of creation primarily through secondary causes.
If we are different from the rest of creation in that we can make truly
autonomous moral choices, we can be called to a personal relationship with
God by his grace, and we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, I don't think
we can say God's involvement with us involves only secondary causes.

On 3/20/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> 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 15:11:56 2007