Filed under: Uncategorized
Other parts to this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
On my last post, Ben responds to some critiques. Time for some Fisking. I’m only going to deal with what has to do with Kant as this has been my only concern.
First, Dan said this about Ben and Kant:
1. You believe, like Kant, that there are both noumena and phenomena.
Ben responded:
On point 1, I don’t subscribe to Kant’s view explicitly. There’s merit.
OK. This is the problem. I raised this in a comment on your blog. In what specific sense do you actually agree with Kant? Whenever you say something like “I generally agree with Kant,” I feel like it lets you off the hook whenever a critique of Kant comes your way. You can say, “Oh well, of course I don’t agree with him there.” His other stuff is ok though.
The presence of dark matter, gravity, and consciousness are all difficult to argue examples of real things that we can’t sense (but can learn about by other means). Let’s not get hung up on “noumenon” and “phenomenon.”
I don’t see what you’re talking about here. Kant’s main point with the noumena and phenomena is that reality cannot be known, only the appearance of reality can be known. There is no guarantee that there is a correlation between the two. This leaves one in a sort of epistemological Switzerland, if you know what I mean. My prior arguments address this.
Unless Plantinga can refute the reality of the mind (which is actually the basis of one of his most famous arguments in favour of considering the reality of God), then I think there’s merit to the point: there are real things we can’t sense, and must investigate by other means.
OK … but what does this point have to do with Kant? Perhaps I’m misreading him, but I don’t think I am.
You seem to be saying we can know X, but not through our senses. Your thinking diverges from Kant on this when you say that you can know X. Kant believed that human knowledge never brought us into contact with the real world. By definition, the noumena is unknowable.
As God is part of the noumena, Kantian philosophy is un-Christian. This is why I’m attacking his thought.
My cautious approach to a more Christian epistemology would say that God has ordered the rational structures of our mind to correspond to the rational order found in the world. There is no need for any noumena / phenomena or Kant.
31 Comments so far
Leave a comment
The Brooks 
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh ok. I see where some of our missing each other is happening.
“Kant believed that human knowledge never brought us into contact with the real world. By definition, the noumena is unknowable.”
This isn’t really all that true. Kant believed that the Noumenal is “thought by understanding alone.” He never said we can’t know it at all, just not through sensation.
I’m not sure where you got your definition from… I have Critique right here in front of me and I’m quoting the man himself.
Regardless, let’s accept your definition for the moment. It makes no difference to me — the view you mention is not what I hold.
I believe that objects can and do express themselves to our senses.
Where I agree with Kant is that there are aspects of the “object” that we can’t grasp through sensation. This is just common sense — I can’t “feel” your magnetic field or hear blood coursing through your veins.
Where I DISAGREE with Kant CATEGORICALLY is when he goes one step further to say that our senses don’t inform us regarding the nature of that thing at all. So, while I might not be able to see or hear or taste certain things about you (that’s right big boy — taste), I can still KNOW some of you — heck, maybe even MOST of you — through what arrives at me sensually. I CAN know SOME of the object in itself.
My primary point though, is that things like sensation don’t give us ALL the answers. Sure, the multitudes saw Christ as he was (and is) a PHYSICAL person. But from where I sit, here and now, I accept him with a confirmation that comes by other means.
So to answer this: “‘I generally agree with Kant,’ I feel like it lets you off the hook whenever a critique of Kant comes your way.”
What I mean is I do believe that objects have properties “in and of themselves,” but I also be believe we DO have the potential to know something ACTUAL through sensation.
My contention has to do with the EXCLUSIVITY of science as a way of knowing, and that we can ALWAYS rely on sense teamed with reason — don’t forget, our hears are also evil and desperately wicked. We have the potential to form conclusions, methodical though they may be, that are driven by flesh (sin is a brilliant and articulate trickster).
There is no test that can prove God, or the fact that you are conscious. So, we turn to other “ways of knowing.”
And yes Dan, I will state them positively, soon enough 😉
Does that help Keith? By all means, poke away. I want to make sure I’m not betraying myself.
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 24, 2007 @ 11:30 pmBen,
I’m not sure I agree with your definition of noumena and phenomena. You say:
“This isn’t really all that true. Kant believed that the Noumenal is ‘thought by understanding alone.’ He never said we can’t know it at all, just not through sensation.”
And here you say:
“Where I agree with Kant is that there are aspects of the “object” that we can’t grasp through sensation. This is just common sense — I can’t “feel” your magnetic field or hear blood coursing through your veins.”
I think the implication of your examples is that anything not available to your senses unaided is noumenal. That is not what I understand, what understand of Kantian noumena is that they may be discerned only through metaphysics. A stethoscope or a metal detector are not metaphysical instruments.
The noumena are entirely inaccessible to physical measure, either through unaided or the best that science can offer. Am I incorrect in this?
Comment by Dan November 25, 2007 @ 3:19 amNo, I’m quite sure my reading of Kant is correct. For Kant, the noumena is by definition unknowable. Therefore, if God is part of the noumena, we cannot know him.
I’m basing this off of a reading of Kant by Ron Nash. He used to teach philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary and the University of Kentucky before he died.
That reading of Kant seems to be commonly accepted.
Comment by Brooks November 26, 2007 @ 2:42 pmI have stated, even in the post on the blog when I first mention noumenon my interpretation may not even be the accepted one… I then go on to say that it doesn’t matter because I’m not here to argue about what Kant thought about it. The model is present, is different.
I only included “noumenon” as a concession the point Jay made. Just as I thought, it has led to more confussion than my initially excluding it.
Forget noumenon and phenomenon — they’re distracting us from the core point. We’re getting carried away by our understanding of them — this is precisely why I try not to use words that have baggage in the first place. We get sidetracked from the ideas and focus on rhetoric.
* * * * *
“My cautious approach to a more Christian epistemology would say that God has ordered the rational structures of our mind to correspond to the rational order found in the world. There is no need for any noumena / phenomena or Kant.”
I agree, in terms of simple “existence.” This has nothing to do with the sorts of things that Faith is concerned with.
Your “more Christian” (very loaded description) epistemology ignores something like Fall. Sure, God’s ordered our minds to accord with the “what is” — we are of course a part of it. But I’m not talking about rational order. I’m talking about what is our “now” perspective. Where we might once have had accord, now, being sinful, I question it.
Regardless, here’s the simple litmus test: do you believe that Faith (faith in a God, in the fact that we have souls, in heaven, hell, in sin) is explicitly contained and influenced by in sensory experience? Do you believe that confirmation can come by other, non-sensual means (like say, the Holy Spirit).
Please answer simply. Yes or no will suffice.
If you do, your “more Christian” epistemology affronts the Scriptural evidence to the contrary. If not, we believe the same thing, we’re just getting hung up on language (which is, again, why I purposefully avoid certain terms and substitute mine own).
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 26, 2007 @ 5:52 pmNo answer?
I win!
Comment by Benjamin November 27, 2007 @ 11:20 pmBen,
First, my reference to a more Christian epistemology was in reference to Kant.
Genesis 1-2 come before Genesis 3. We still bear the image of God even if it is marred by the fall. Now I would love to see you develop an argument that shows that post-Fall our minds don’t correspond with reality. If you take this position, I think you’d have to deny the correspondence theory of truth. This is problematic as the Bible itself depends on this view of truth.
I’m not even sure I’m addressing what you’re talking about. It’s not clear. You say you’re not talking about rational order … and then you talk about it.
Ben, of course I believe that faith can be influenced by non-sensory experience. Everybody does. But normally, God works through the means of creation using our minds and senses. Even when God speaks he uses our senses. To deny this emphasis seems gnostic.
If this is your point, why not say it simply? Why the long posts and 50 page paper? I’m confused.
Comment by thebrooks November 28, 2007 @ 4:02 pmBen,
Where are you getting your ideas about Kant from? What sources are you using? Are you just reading the primary sources yourself and nothing else?
The reason I’m asking is I’d like to know what Kant philosopher says that Kant believed that the noumena is knowable.
I’m asking for sources.
Yeye.
Comment by thebrooks November 28, 2007 @ 4:03 pm[…] KANT AGAIN […]
Pingback by KANT KANT KANT « The Brooks November 28, 2007 @ 4:05 pm*Or*
You presented a false choice with that “simple” litmus test.
Comment by Dan November 28, 2007 @ 4:11 pmHey the Brooks.
I’m reading primary sources. I left a quote above, from Critique that debunks the idea that “noumenon” are entirely unknowable — from the man himself.
“Now I would love to see you develop an argument that shows that post-Fall our minds don’t correspond with reality.”
I didn’t say that. In fact I said:
My point is that sin has dealt us a blow. We were knocked down a few pegs in terms our judgment and integrity (which shows up in disciplines we apply effort to, like science). We can make a case that we have also lost something regarding perception — I’m not saying we’re living in illusory worlds where nothing can be trusted. People are coming to that conclusion about me apart from anything I’ve said.
“But normally, God works through the means of creation using our minds and senses. Even when God speaks he uses our senses. To deny this emphasis seems gnostic.”
Yeah. And I didn’t deny it. But Faith is not something corporeal, thought it can be affected by and effected by the corporeal — it is other to the corporeal.
“If this is your point, why not say it simply? Why the long posts and 50 page paper? I’m confused.”
I would challenge you to wipe the slate, and start over again. We’re getting bogged down by Kant, and I didn’t want to include him in the first place — things are getting confused, and I wanted to avoid that. If you start over again though, I’m sure the ideas will be more clear.
50 pages? Ideas require development — obviously some of mine have been contentious. There’s a lot of subtlety and much of the nuisance of my points can be lost in an aggressive read, There’s a lot of self-interpretation in the work. Pair that with my using certain words certain ways and you have the makings of confusion! But I can’t get where I’m going any other way.
What I’m outlining deserves more than a “This is what’s what, and that’s that!”
* * * * *
Wait Dan! Don’t run away so fast!
False choice? Hardly. The question again:
“…do you believe that Faith (faith in a God, in the fact that we have souls, in heaven, hell, in sin) is explicitly contained and influenced by in sensory experience? Do you believe that confirmation can come by other, non-sensual means (like say, the Holy Spirit).”
There’s nothing strawish OR manish about this as a choice. It’s a linchpin, and a big one.
“Yes” or “no” makes all the difference — it is a polarizing question — there is no maybe. And it is certainly not begging the question — its completely valid.
Since Keith agrees, regarding this point, as he’s said himself, he can’t so easily dismiss everything else I’ve said. He’d be denying his own point principals if he did.
Yes he qualified by saying, “But God sometimes…” which is fine — I agree there too. My point was that Faith is not explicitly contained in the sensory. Confirmation can come by other, non-sensual means.
This has only ever been my premise, really, when reduced to its simplest form: the confirmation of truth can come by extra-sensual means.
That paired with Keith posting a quote he loves regarding Scientism, leaves me to believe that we’re really just getting hung up on semantics and that Kant has been hugely distracting.
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 28, 2007 @ 5:31 pmBen,
I’m not sure what you mean by faith as a form of “confirmation.” To me faith is the step one takes in the lack of confirmation – a step based on accumulated probabilities, reflection et cetera. This is true in everything from trusting that the men in the uniforms sitting at the cockpit controls are actually qualified pilots to whether one can actually know that one is not a mere “brain in a vat.”
One might feel confirmed in one’s faith by experiences – everything from the plane landing safely at the hands of the aforementioned pilots to the ecstatic religious experiences of everyone from Theresa of Avila onward. But I’m not sure how you construct faith in and of itself as a confirmation; rather than saying that events, sensations, even feelings perhaps; are the confirmation of things taken on faith.
Of things that I have mentioned as confirmations for faith, the best ones are the ones that are broadly empirically verifiable.
Perhaps you conceive of faith as meaning something other than what I do.
Anyway, I feel as though we are wondering through some theological back-alley with no clear purpose. I take you at your word, Ben, when you say that your overall scheme for better ways of knowing will be forthcoming, but until it does, and until we can scrutinize it, I feel as though the rest of this is fruitless.
Comment by Dan November 28, 2007 @ 9:49 pmBen,
Here is a perfect example of my frustration.
[1] I assume you are saying our minds don’t correspond with reality.
[2] Your respond with, “I did say that our minds accord with reality” and provide a quote.
[3] You qualify 2 by saying sin has dealt us a “blow”.
[4]You then say “We can make a case that we have lost something regarding perception.”
Do you mean perception in terms of how our minds grasp reality? I know of no other way to take this claim. If you do, [4] is functionally saying the same thing as [1].
……
Comment by thebrooks November 28, 2007 @ 10:09 pm[…] KANT AGAIN […]
Pingback by Dr. Davis on the noumena « The Brooks November 28, 2007 @ 10:33 pmI made a new post with regards to what Kant thought of the noumena.
Comment by thebrooks November 28, 2007 @ 11:21 pm“Do you mean perception in terms of how our minds grasp reality? I know of no other way to take this claim. If you do, [4] is functionally saying the same thing as [1].”
No, perception, meaning, what is possible for our senses to apprehend. I keep coming back to this example because it’s concrete, not because it tells the whole story.
We cannot see ultraviolet, infrared, alpha, gamma, beta, or x-rays. We are limited sensually.
This does not mean that what we can see is in error — that is, does not accord with reality — it is just not complete.
Again, another example: a colour blind man cannot discern between red and green — that’s a huge part of reality to be missing out on. But that does not mean that was he DOES see is implicitly wrong — he’s missing out on what is, and cannot rely on what he sees for total completeness — but he is still very much connected to reality.
Sin, then, like color blindness, is an affliction. It allows us to be possessed by demons, to be governed by ambition and self-interest, it distorts what our minds do with information (for example, assuming that our friend or colleague is talking about us behind our backs, when really it is just our insecurity that is leading us to believe this is so).
I’m not sure why you are defending an idealistic existence, where we are unscathed by the human condition. I mean, it’s not a particularly biblical point of view, like you claim. If anything the scriptures teach that we need Christ if we are to have correct understanding…
“The heart is evil above all things…”
“Lean not on your own understanding…”
“His ways are higher than our ways…”
“Now I see dimly as in a mirror…”
I’m advocating that we are in desperate insufficiency, and are lacking. This is very different than what you think I’m saying — that we are delusional. Sin can certainly render us delusional, but I have faith (there’s that word again!) that God made us to experience His creation, progress within it, and know him through it (Rom 1:20). It invites us to worship and know something of Him.
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 29, 2007 @ 1:56 pm…in which benjamin addresses the concerns of his friend dan
Yes. I’ll buy that, sort of. That is part of the basic human experience — this accounts for Wicca, Hinduism, Islam — people need to have “faith.”
Again, spot on. This, all fits with what I call “simple faith” or better, I’ll call it “common faith.” That is, we look around, and go ahead with beliefs that are reasonable. We can’t prove we’re not brains in vats, but, be just assume we’re not — it’s a safe assumption, and most likely correct, proof or no proof. The living of life requires this sort of trust, otherwise we’ll find ourselves paralyzed.
But this is not what I’m talking about when I mention Faith as a way of knowing.
I would implore you to allow for the possibility that, though you might be unsure on this point, it doesn’t invalidate the point.
As I have said, Faith (big faith) is a few things: it is a gift from God, therefore, supernatural and not “grounded” in the corporeal (though we might be awakened to it by “common faith”); faith is the “evidence of things hoped for…and things unseen” (therefore, not grounded in the corporeal); faith the Holy Spirit conversing with our spirit on the level of pure Being (that is, the ontological, and again, not corporeal).
So what you are unsure of is the reality of “Big Faith,” and Common Faith, we both agree on. While you might agree in the supernaturality of Big Faith, you are unsure as to it’s validity as some sort of category of knowledge — I’ll do my best to write in-depth on this point soon.
This is a new concept to a lot of people, though there is some historical basis. By and large, Big Faith has not been viewed in the way I’m presenting, and has also not been discussed in contradistinction to “Common Faith.”
Common Faith, applied to the corporeal and the rational.
Big Faith, applied to the ontological (spiritual), independent of Common Faith (one can precede the other, only Big Faith does not require any herald or advocate — unlike Common Faith, it is self-sufficient and self-sustaining).
I’m hoping I’ll be able to elaborate to your satisfaction.
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 29, 2007 @ 2:58 pm“I’m not sure what you mean by faith as a form of ‘confirmation.'”
I get this.
Human takes “leap of faith” and believes and accepts the gospel.
Holy Spirit indwells human, and provides supernatural assurance of the truth of the gospel, etc. This assurance is how we as Christians KNOW truth, rather than simply believe in it.
Comment by Basil Munroe Godevenos November 29, 2007 @ 4:12 pmThanks Basil!
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 29, 2007 @ 4:36 pmBen,
Come on. Look at the context of what you said. So pre-fall everyone could see gamma rays and x-rays? Because if you track what you actually wrote … that’s the implication.
Comment by thebrooks November 29, 2007 @ 9:30 pmKeith your splitting hairs an nitpicking, at the expense of actually listening to the points.
I have no idea what was the case “pre-fall.” How could I have conclusive reports? I’m not saying that we could see anything that we can’t now. I’m presenting a case that this could have been so — we know that sin has removed us from what we were created to be — take death, disease, depression, damnation, etc.
You don’t think that in having to suffer at the hands of these severe and horrific symptoms (part of living in a Fallen state) that maybe we’ve lost out on some other things to?
I’m saying:
1) we can make a case that the Fall has affected sensuality
2) we know that our senses are limited and do not offer everything to us
3) we are not trapped in a grandiose illusion, but sin and self can and do affect what knowledge we construct, and the conclusions we come to.
You’re so focused on the minutia, hoping to catch me in a fallacy or contradiction, that you’re missing the entire substance and truth of the position.
Comment by Benjamin Allison November 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pmBen,
It still sounds like you’ve got some sort of evidence confused with faith. You appear to be talking about what I’d broadly characterise as direct personal revelation. Assuming this happens (not every branch of the church would characterise belief in God as happening in this fashion). How do you know that you’re not a paranoid schizophrenic? Seriously. You have to go back and check things over, don’t you? So you’re back at square one.
Comment by Dan December 2, 2007 @ 3:55 amYep. The Holy Spirit bears witness to our Spirit, to the spirit of every believer. In fact, it is the only reason why we can truly embrace Christ spiritually.
Intellectual belief is not saving belief. The impartation of the Spirit is the foundational and exclusive mechanism of the confirmation of God and His truth. The core of Faith as prescribed by God is not “rational.” It is meta-rational.
Read Kierkegaarde — he goes so far as to suggest Faith must be anti-rational — I wouldn’t always go that far, but at times, certainly, it is the case.
I’m not sure what to tell you Dan… what you’re describing might make some rational sense, but it certainly doesn’t agree with what Christian theological tradition would hold to be correct — I mean, even contrary denominations can agree on this point.
Faith IS evidence. The scriptures say that verbatim. If you disagree — if you believe that faith is not evidence for some personal reason — that’s your prerogative. Just know that you stand in opposition to the bulk of Christian thought on the matter, and more importantly, the explicit testimony of the Scriptures.
Again, yeah, the Scriptures are “empirical” testimony — but it cannot be spiritually apprehended or Eternally embraced without Faith, and that, which is the gift of God, is not a matter for the mind.
No. You don’t That’s the point. To the world, we might as well be insane. But the Holy Spirit says to my spirit that I am confirmed in Christ, in ways that the rational mind cannot not of themselves ascend to. Though my mind can interface with my Faith, my mind is not antecedent to my Faith — this is the miracle of Faith.
So what if I cannot “prove” the objective, rational reality of my Faith to the world? This is not required of me. Yes, I’m called to give a defense and bear witness. But much of it people would consider irrational.
The irony here is that it requires Faith to accept Faith. Convincing arguments merit nothing. It is only in a leap of abandon that the Spirit can come up underneath the soul and offer it a new standard.
And this work is of the Spirit alone.
Comment by Benjamin Allison December 3, 2007 @ 5:43 pmWithout getting too far into the substance of this post, is this where we are now? Kierkegaard’s leap of faith? I think we may be confusing each other’s terms (wh, but is this what we’ve arrived at? A leap of faith? That’s all well and good, there are a great many Christians who dispute this description (Ravi Zacharias off the top my head), but I’m not going to quibble over it. What I’m wondering is whether this is essentially the point of all this. Is this what it boils down to:
1. Empirical knowledge can sometimes be problematic.
2. Take a leap of faith.
The problem is that all sorts of people leap in every different direction. The sort of absolute confirmation that this leap confers is felt by all too many. Does anyone doubt that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were utterly assured in their own interpretation of Islam? (Oops, sorry Jay, I mean the CIA missile drones.) Are you correct in your leap, or are they correct in theirs, or both, or neither?
Again, you have to back your leaps with some kind of empirical security and even that is not a guarantee. Kierkegaard’s leap seems to assume an understanding of the recorded history (i.e.: the Bible) of Christ that may or may not appear rational to a 19th Century European. The leap is an acceptance of what evidence is available despite an irrational (or offensive – Kierkegaard is hung up on the “offense” caused by the gospels) appearance on the surface. A great deal of empirical evidence does not make rational sense on first look.
Comment by Dan December 4, 2007 @ 9:28 pmAnd? trying to find a pragmatic method to determine if someone’s belief is correctly placed is irrelevant.
Yes. But I’m going one step further.
You and I can be lead to faith because something seems reasonable, there’s supporting evidence, it agrees with our minds, etc. We choose to place our faith in something (whether it’s a leap or not, at this point, doesn’t matter).
So, here, we are choosing, of ourselves, to believe, and this has come by way of the empirical. That much is obvious.
However, the entire testimony of Scripture is laced with an entirely different phenomenon, and that is, Faith.
This is something that:
1) is a gift of God
2) can only come by way of the Holy Spirit
3) is evidence of non-empirical things
4) has ontological significance
Our “faith,” or for the sake of clarity, “belief,” is simply an intellectual posture. But true Faith, the kind that only comes from God and proves to our Souls that He is in fact real, is not intellectual at all.
I’ll say it again: our belief is intellectual. It is something we assemble on our own. True Faith, as can only come from God by the Spirit, is ontological. We can not assemble it.
Yet, in receiving it, it becomes truly ours. It is both:
1) salvation
2) the conviction and evidence of salvation
19 hijackers. All, really believing. Perhaps in a more tenacious and convicted way than even we “believe.” This overwhelming conviction, though, was nothing but thoughts, hopes, programming, etc.
It had no ontological significance. It wasn’t proof of anything other than dedication to an ideal.
However, the revelation of the Spirit is a proof, to the Believer (notice, capitals). It is not a proof to a jury or panel or the guy on the street. Faith as given by God is proof to the holder of that gift. It is a confirmation. It is an altered state of Being. It is a way of knowing things that in its absence cannot be known, and is in no way a mere intellectual posture.
Ease provability does not make a truth more or less true. We can give rational defense for Christ. But we know, explicitly, that it is only God, through the goading of the Spirit, that can prove himself. That is his job alone, and it comes by supernatural means.
You’ve avoided answering most of my questions so far. But here’s a simple one: do you believe God is supernatural? Do you believe that Faith has any sort of supernatural component?
Is there any such thing as the supernatural?
Comment by Benjamin Allison December 8, 2007 @ 3:02 am“This overwhelming conviction, though, was nothing but thoughts, hopes, programming, etc.”
And yet, it must have been real to at least the four ringleaders. How do we know we are not so programmed? You’ve danced relatively close to Plantinga’s idea of warranted belief as a defense for theism – I’ll assume that you’re familiar with it given your interest in Notre Dame’s philosophy of religion faculty. Yet the way this idea was expressed by Kelly James Clark in that email Jay sent out makes the idea of warranted belief in theism appear to be part of a set of universal innate ideas. Like the problem of other minds, we assume it them to be so, and like grammar (think Chomsky’s work) we have this belief innately.
Of course Clark’s system appears (from what I can see of it) to simply provide evidence against atheism, it is not quite so handy in the field of comparative religions and the seductive certainties offered in every house of worship. FWIW I can see how an atheist would construct an argument against it – but then Clark doesn’t put much stock in arguments – that’s the point of warranted belief.
Moreover, I think you’ve set this up as a needlessly mystical event – what about the Ethiopian traveler who was convinced once Philip explained Isaiah to him? It is dangerous when we appeal to internal, unverifiable confirmation when a good look at the information available to everyone else will do just as well. That way lies Jonestown – or at least Pat Robertson.
For the sake of your amusement I would like very much to answer your question, except you’d need to define “supernatural” first. Some say God exists out of space but in time, others disagree, I do not know that there is a universally accepted view of this matter, the Bible is silent – or at least vague – on this point.
On lighter note, I have YouTube video of Kant you might enjoy at my blog – check it out!
Comment by Dan December 8, 2007 @ 11:32 pmI’d say “seemed real,” or “appeared as real” — certainly this can be this case without the object of belief itself being real.
I’m not sure if I know this argument. The only ideas of Plantinga’s that I’m familiar with is the argument that belief in God is reasonable in no different a way than belief in mind is reasonable. We believe in mind, so, it is at least reasonable to consider belief in God. Is this what you’re referring to?
I’m not really headed there… but if Monarchs know to fly to Mexico every year, and babies know to suck on nipples, I can’t really vouch for a pure tabula rasa view of the mind. This will take us on a tangent though that isn’t really related to this topic.
Yes, I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
But answer this: how was it Philip was able to interpret Isaiah? Years of study? A tutorial by Jesus? I would argue it was through the empowering an illumination of the Holy Spirit.
Christianity is inherently mystical. When you try to make it something purely rational, you sap it of its essence, and it becomes nothing more than good ideas.
Are you only after good ideas?
It doesn’t matter as far as this discussion is concerned. By supernatural I mean:
– works in ways that cannot be sensually embraced
– employs methods that are other to our rational faculties
– moves in ways that science is ill-equipped to answer?
I’d be very interested to hear how you would interpret the following passages:
“Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit”
“your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God”
“…but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.”
“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit”
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this”
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”
“Faith is evidence of things hoped for. The conviction of things unseen.”
A smattering of passages. Yes. But they all together (context considered) suggest:
– belief in Christ guarantees the indwelling of the Spirit
– the Holy Spirit communes and converses with the Believer
– Faith is a gift from God – that is, not of human initiative
– in the same way as the Spirit, Faith is a confirmation to the believer – evidence
* * * * *
You can believe what you want… but the Scriptures are clear as far as what God believes. I’m not sure why you would be in such disagreement.
Perhaps sharing your interpretation of the passage above will help us understand where you’re coming from. Maybe I’m missing something in your view that is equally Biblical.
Schizophrenics! Terrorists! Cult members!
The place of Faith leaves us in such company – that’s the price of following Him. The Scriptures are clear on this and you have no grounds on which to suggest something more intellectually safe or “scientific” or tenable for the sake of ease or credibility — so that in a debate with the atheist you will not be laughed at or dismissed.
We are blessed with the ability to be rational, but that only gets us so far — then there is the precipice, which only the Spirit can bear us over.
Comment by Benjamin Allison December 11, 2007 @ 9:09 pmDear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?
For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead
I agree that The Holy Spirit, dwells within us and informs us in a way that encourages faith. But I think that the necessity of some physical proof exists to verify our faith. I think in the New Testament there is huge emphasis of the church being unique and that in our love we prove God to the unbeliever and it is in this way that we can seperate oursleves from the Schizophrenics! Terrorists! and Cult members!
“since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you”
Its not outside God’s power to inform us in physical ways and surely the logical arguments and proofs of Christian scholars have aided in keeping us seperate from spiritual piracy for the last 2000 years. I think this legitimacy that we enjoy as Christians is from the Holy Spirit.
I think you dudes are going at from such polar opposites that you’re not seeing
– works in ways that cannot be sensually embraced
– employs methods that are other to our rational faculties
– moves in ways that science is ill-equipped to answer?
That The Holy Spirit is easily capable if acting the opposite way and you’re both right.
Comment by theroan December 12, 2007 @ 9:23 pmFor the sake of brevity I’m not inclined to share with you any competing set of biblical quotes. We all have access to searchable online Bibles to give us a motherlode of out-of-context quotes. Nor I am about to dispute innate knowledge since I brought it up first.
What leaves me shocked is your conclusion:
“The Scriptures are clear on this and you have no grounds on which to suggest something more intellectually safe or “scientific” or tenable for the sake of ease or credibility — so that in a debate with the atheist you will not be laughed at or dismissed.”
So are Christians that credibly engage atheists all a bunch of heretics? Isn’t the whole project of Plantinga, or Clark, or Craig to make a credible defense of Christianity in the face of secular critique?
I’m not about to deny that there is surely some mystery in Christianity but fetishize mystery, mysticism, and unreason when there are saner alternatives is, puzzling at best. While study, reflection, and meditation may not be exciting as rolling on the floor as some charismatic expression of faith, you seem to hold more intellectual pursuits in opposition to true Christianity.
Why cede reason in defending Christianity? It’s unnecessary.
Comment by Dan December 12, 2007 @ 9:36 pmFully agree. Never asserted the contrary.
Yes, but in part. Christ was thought by PHARISEES, the religious leaders of the day, to be possessed by a demon. Paul tells us that God’s wisdom appears as FOOLISHNESS to men.
What I’m advocating is a bit of balance and clarity — honesty with the entirety of what we sign up for.
You’re doing so much disagreeing and making so many dismissive statements. I think you owe it to anyone reading this to actually back this statement up — what is being implied is that I’ve taken the Scriptures out of context.
Prove it.
No. Another prime example of taking a piece of what I’m saying, hoping to dismiss my entire view, while ignoring a great deal of what else I’ve said.
I ended that same post by saying, “We are blessed with the ability to be rational, but that only gets us so far — then there is the precipice, which only the Spirit can bear us over.”
Did you miss this part? It would effectively qualify, balance, and frame the other quote you were so eager to remember.
I’m not advocating anti-rationalism. I’m saying that it only gets us so far, and that God and His extension to us through the Holy Spirit transcends our ability to package him and present Him to the unbeliever.
It’s becoming evident where some possible biases lie. My line of thought has nothing to do with the Charismatic at all. These are very basic and fundamental truths of salvation… like, Bible School 101. It concerns me than anyone would think they’re outrageous with so much “empirical testimony” in Scripture speaking so plainly about these things.
Through this while thread, all you’ve done is disagreed without actually investing anything of your own view, and how your view would be Biblically justifiable. You’re disagreeing because, well, you just disagree. But what good is that?
I’ve presented case after case, (each one very much rational — imagine that) and instead of conceding anything of value, you just continue to pick away at minutia, again, without offering any of your own beliefs and what they’re grounded in.
Instead of speaking to the Scriptures I’ve cited (and none of them taken out of context you implied) you’ve just side stepped them.
What do you believe about them? They are authority regarding this topic. You’d like to make not statement concerning them?
Go and read the context if you like! I can defend very handily my mention of each one, its relevance to the conversation, and the appropriateness and stability of my interpretation.
As you’ve said, the Scriptures are empirical testimony. They attest to the merits and necessity of testimony. However, they also teach that much of what matters is beyond the grasp of the human mind, and must be accepted through supernatural means. You’ve not once actually given much of an argument as to why this is not the case, and why you personally do not believe it to be so in the terms I’m presenting. You’ve only talked about the practical reasons why this line of thought might dangerous or hard to swallow.
A triune God is hard to swallow. immaculate conception is hard to swallow. 6 day creation, the fully God fully Man Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are all hard to swallow. These things and more are non-nonsensical to the unbeliever.
Would you deny any of these?
I’d very much like for the conversation to continue, but I think for it to be worthwhile you’re going to have to invest something a bit more personal — something of a position.
I’ve maintained the reality of both all along. I’m not denying the physical, visible, rational, practical works of God. They are bountiful and ubiquitous.
It seems though that there’s much reluctance in embracing the deeper truths of the Scriptures, and the things in which spiritual substance is grounded.
Comment by Benjamin Allison December 12, 2007 @ 10:26 pmBen,
I think that Jay has ably demonstrated that you can get a whole bunch of quotes that don’t necessarily gel with the ones you present.
In the meantime it appears that you are now an advocate of the harmonious operation of faith and reason whereas your previous comment suggested that there was nothing that could prevent a Christian from being mocked by an atheist in a debate.
FWIW, I don’t buy a literal 6 24-hr day creation story.
In the meantime, you seem obsessed with me presenting some kind of comprehensive worldview or position. Sorry, I never offered one, and frankly I don’t have any intention to cook up a comprehensive theory of everything. You’ve offered up a point of view and I have presented my critiques, concerns, questions, observations, et cetera in the hopes that this somehow sharpens your reasoning. I am sorry if my attention to your nascent foray into philosophy is somehow unwelcome.
Comment by Dan December 13, 2007 @ 4:52 pmRight. How do those two points conflict?
It’s most welcome. You offer a different view. I just wanted more than out-of-hand dismissal, that’s all. I mean, you implied that the passages of scripture I cited were taken out of context, and just moved along with no real support as to why you thought so. Well, qualifying dissent would be nice! At least I can respond.
You’re right. You didn’t offer any personal view, and that’s your prerogative — but you aren’t offering much as to why you disagree on certain points, and why what I’m saying is actually errant, apart from reasons of practicality, expediency, or pragmatism.
This is an example of what I mean: how so? What proof? Has he really done that?
If both sets of quotes come from the same Scripture, do they really cancel each other out, making both wrong?
No. I can explain anything he’s cited, along with what I’ve cited, in a harmonious way. There must be harmony if it’s the Word of God. If not, it’s useless.
I embrace both sides but my focus has been toward the side that would exclude the other. I’m not seeking the exclusion of anything and never have. I’m after balance, which requires (fr the time being) focussed criticism of the side which is weighing more heavily in the West at present.
You have so much capacity intellectually, which is why I value your critiques. But it doesn’t really help me to get a “That’s wrong!” without making much of a case as to why what is being stated is wrong, apart from purely pragmatic reasons.
And your video convinced me. I’ll be voting Nietzsche in the next election! lol
Comment by Benjamin Allison December 13, 2007 @ 5:08 pm