Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

On 11/26/08, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Burgy,
>
> Very nice to have Polanyi introduced into the discussion!
>
> However, I hope you won't mind if I offer some minor correction to your
> remarks on Personal Knowledge?
>
> Strictly Polanyi doesn't offer "Personal Knowledge" (PK) as a third category
> alongside the objective and the subjective. Rather he considers that it is a
> category which embraces these two and so goes beyond the false "objective /
> subjective" dichotomy.

I read Polanyi's book some years ago and probably have read more books
commenting on it than the original. So I appreciate your comments.

It may well be my own take on the issue that I separate knowledge into
three categories, and I'd rather discuss that idea rather than whether
(or not) it comes from Polanyi.

I had this issue come to my attention recently while reading a blog
written by a 22 year old college student in which he asks the question
of a theist "What evidence would you accept that would cause you to
disbelieve in God?" Yeah -- it's a "loaded" question, but I had to
address it (so far, only privately).

So far I have concluded that there is no such evidence, even in
theory. Of course, I may not have pursued the question far enough.

Tillich once said (I papaphrase):

1. There must be an infinite divide between the human and the divine.
2. Therefore, there is a necessity of revelation. (IOW, God must reach
us; we cannot reach Him).
3. As a necessary consequence, there will alwys be inconsistencies and
paradox in our speech about the divine.

My own conversion to Xtianity came about when I began to understand
the above (long before I ever heard of Tillich, BTW). I remember
driving my antique Jaguar to work in Akron one day (I was about 31),
and having a conversation with the God I diod not believe in, saying,
in effect, "I can't find you and I don't know you exist. So if you
exist, you have to do the finding. All I can say is that I'm willing."
 I don't know exactly when the conversion came, but it seems to have
been only a few days later, and was quite unexpected. But that's
another story.

Now I'd classify that series of events as "personal knowledge." Not
subjective; not objective. Just "part of me."

The argument of course is that the events WERE subjective, just me
talking to myself and arguing to myself that I'd "heard" from God.
Such, I admit, might be a possibility -- but a number of happening
since that time (other stories) all tend to confirm it as being from
the divine. Personally.

Murray -- I "personally" appreciate your presence on this list. I
learn from you.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 10:51:41 2008