# Facts aren't Facts



## Afterthought

How should we think about such things as facts requiring interpretation? Facts never occur in a bare setting; the facts themselves change according to how we interpret them. For example, to observe an object as part of a scientific process, one needs to interpret that fact of data according to something in order to use it; indeed, our understanding of the world becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of that as a fact that we see in the world. Indeed, not just facts, but our perception too isn't bare. For example, we can see a ball because we interpret it to be different from its surroundings; that interpretation is itself based on a theory of how objects behave and are distinguishable from their surroundings. Even further, that ball we see we distinguish from its surroundings by its color; but the distinguishing between colors, saying one color is different from another, is itself an interpretation and requires a theory.

This sounds a lot like Van Til's ideas about facts, so perhaps thinking this way about facts is fine? If we do think about facts this way, an obvious worry presents itself: how do we escape subjectivism? I suppose some form of subjectivism can be escaped by being a Christian, though it would seem we still have an element of that subjectivism present in both our observations of the world and in our reading and interpretation of the Bible. But I'm also not sure how one would dialog with an unbelieving philosopher who held this view because if we both agreed that facts change according to one's background beliefs (which differ amongst people), it would be difficult to argue that Christianity is objectively true.

Thoughts? Answers to the questions and worries?


----------



## jwright82

Afterthought said:


> If we do think about facts this way, an obvious worry presents itself: how do we escape subjectivism?



This is only a problem if you pit subjectivism against bare facts. Things are what they are, regardless of how we interpret them. But we always have our worldview in place when we come accross any fact whatsoever. So no fact is bare, they are always interpreted in some way. 




Afterthought said:


> But I'm also not sure how one would dialog with an unbelieving philosopher who held this view because if we both agreed that facts change according to one's background beliefs (which differ amongst people), it would be difficult to argue that Christianity is objectively true.



No one is arguing that facts change. It is a fact that Jesus rose from the grave, it is an iterpretation of that fact that it is either due to some mysterious natural cause or due to divine intervention.


----------



## Afterthought

jwright82 said:


> No one is arguing that facts change. It is a fact that Jesus rose from the grave, it is an iterpretation of that fact that it is either due to some mysterious natural cause or due to divine intervention.


Perhaps that is the difference between Van Til's ideas and the unbelieving view of facts carrying theories with them. The unbeliever who would support this kind of thinking would say that the facts do indeed change according to our background beliefs and that truth depends on the context. Some examples are....scientific theories in which we have contradictory ways of viewing the world, such as in classical and quantum mechanics, yet both are true within their context, and the facts of the matter (e.g., are particles waves?) depend on the theory one adopts; perhaps unbelievers viewing the incarnation and Trinity as impossible because of their presuppositions, whereas for Christians those are the fact of the matter; perhaps optical illusions in which the fact at first is that they appear in one way until we forcibly categorize it according to another way and so the fact of what we see changes; perhaps also viewing things in the world as separate objects instead of viewing them in some other way in which the fact is that there are no separate objects (or for another perceptual example, categorizing colors in a different scheme such that the fact is that there are a different number of primary colors than the number we usually think of).


----------



## MW

This kind of relativism works in the context of an absolute Interpreter. Consider Daniel. For the unbelieving king and his council relativism brought confusion and sorrow. It brought light and life to Daniel for God gave him understanding, and with that kind of understanding comes insight and comfort that applies to all of life. I suppose a better way of stating it is, that all facts are not relative, but relational. In saying this, however, we must never exclude the propositional as an essential component of truth for humans.


----------



## Afterthought

Thanks!



armourbearer said:


> I suppose a better way of stating it is, that all facts are not relative, but relational. In saying this, however, we must never exclude the propositional as an essential component of truth for humans.


If you get the time, could you expand on this a little? The idea is that the facts are absolute and unchanging, but we view them differently based on how we relate to God (and to the natural world and other people too perhaps?), who interprets them rightly for us? I guess that would save us from subjectivism in the natural world (well, to the extent that we can now know "the truth is out there;" finding the facts of the natural world will still be a subjective matter for the most part cause the Bible doesn't speak as much to those issues), and because we disagree with the unbelieving philosopher, we could argue for Christianity objectively by tying the objectivity to God's interpretation of the facts (which in turn requires a revelation for us to ground our knowledge of these things, though I'd imagine the unbeliever would ask about how we escape subjectivity in interpreting revelation, whether natural or special). Because of human finitude, none will ever know a fact is absolute unless humans relate them back to God, so perhaps that is the key defense for Christianity versus an unbeliever who holds that kind of relativism (though I wonder whether that counts as an objective defense; initially, it seems to be an "this is the only way to ground our facts, assuming we want to do so to begin with")?


----------



## MW

Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it. They will never find the truth while they are running away from it. Post-modernism has provided a good critique of modernism. It has shown the modernist that it is destructive to personhood to depersonalise life. At the same time post-modernism suffers from its own self-created problems. It tells us that truth is a construct that people in power create to exercise rule over us. So what is their answer? To make truth a mere interpretation. What do they accomplish? They make the human being himself the lord of truth as if he is able to transcend life. He ends up making man more confused and troubled than the modernist did. He leaves man without anything definite to personalise. Nothing immanent has meaning. The transcendent person has made himself so aloof he is all alone. A relational model recognises that much of our understanding develops through relationships. Those relationships emphasise that we are finite creatures who cannot transcend life. Being immanently tied to life we are bound to other people and must learn to trust what they say to us, and respond with consideration and respect to them. The very existence of these inter-dependent relationships and our need to trust in authority and testimony is only possible and only satisfied in the living Creator and Redeemer who has revealed Himself as the transcendent authority whose testimony is trustworthy for all of life.


----------



## Philip

Some things to note:

One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> Some things to note:
> 
> One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.



So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?

CT


----------



## jwright82

Philip said:


> Some things to note:
> 
> One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge. That is, in order to consider something a "fact" one has to have methods for evaluating this premise---methods rooted in a tradition. I do not think that any unbeliever will ever (until the last judgment) come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because this fact can only be ascertained in the context of Christian faith and this context is understood within the context of Christian community. That is, we learn how to be Christian through fellowship with other Christians and through following those more advanced in faith than we. Our exegetical skills are informed by our Christian community---we learn to read and recognize the Bible for what it is because we are rooted in a tradition that helps us to do so. This is the way that knowledge proceeds.



This is why we catechize our children.


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?



Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------




jwright82 said:


> This is why we catechize our children.



Indeed it is. It's also why our elders, deacons, and pastors need to be men of good moral character.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.
Click to expand...


I suppose my problem with your statement is that you are critiquing modern and postmodernism for not taking proper account of community etc. If at the end of the day, you are held responsible for your actions and beliefs regardless of which community you grow up with or join, then I am not sure what teeth your critique has. If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point. (To be fair, I have problems with both philosophies but just not at this point).

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point.



I didn't say that they are able to transcend their community---I said that they are able to evaluate it. There is a difference. When one evaluates one's own community, one is doing so with the tools of that community. Take, for example, Charles Dickens' _Oliver Twist_. This book is a critique of English society in the mid-19th Century, but it is also a product of that society. One cannot evaluate anything except from a standpoint, and that standpoint is always influenced and shaped by a community---and there's nothing bad about this. I believe that humans are created to function in community.


----------



## Afterthought

Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective. While we could tie objectivity to God's self-revealed testimony, people could claim that we interpret natural revelation, and special revelation, differently because of our subjective background beliefs that cannot seem to be evaluated objectively because of their radical differences from person to person (and so the background beliefs seem only to be influenced by subjective factors, whether rational or irrational). They could also more easily claim the same sort of thing about the natural world (like in the investigations of science) because God's revelation doesn't reveal every universal for it. Perhaps I'm missing something important?



armourbearer said:


> Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it.


How do we justify universals that Scripture doesn't cover then? We cannot know universals of the natural world, though we make appeal to them all the time. I would think that the truth about how the natural world functions, and its history, would be something that needs to be discovered, but the way to justify that those truths are out there is by acknowledging a God who usually works by ordinary providence in the world.



armourbearer said:


> Nothing immanent has meaning.


Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our ever present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?



Philip said:


> One of the things that both modernists and postmodernists have failed to take note of is the fact that methods are necessary for knowledge.


Well, in dialoging with unbelievers, I guess that would help in responding to the charge of subjetivity in interpreting Scripture because it's impossible to avoid in any method of knowledge. But how do we know what is the right method?


As a side issue, it appears that on more than one occasion in this thread, appeal has been made to the ultimate misery of man without accepting Christianity. Is such an appeal allowed to be made in arguing for the truth of a position?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the truth out there? Not really. Truth is personal. Humans know the truth. When they go "out there" it is because they are trying to escape it.
> 
> 
> 
> How do we justify universals that Scripture doesn't cover then?
Click to expand...


Scripture addresses us as ones who are already in possession of these universals. E.g., God is, who is my neighbour, no lie is of the truth, etc.



Afterthought said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing immanent has meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our every present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?
Click to expand...


My statement certainly does look dangerous when it is thrown out there on its own. Recalling that I said this is what happens in light of the post-modern critique, let the unbeliever counter that he can infuse meaning into immanent things, but by his own statement, it is "his" meaning, not such that enables him to share anything immanent with another. Again, the point is that his transcendence has destroyed the reality that our personhood is bound to the immanent.


----------



## Philip

Afterthought said:


> Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective.



You have to do two things: first explode the idea that absolute truth (that is, things that are true in reality) is necessarily "objective" and capable of being dispassionately scrutinized---as Christians, we know that God is the truth and therefore truth is always personal. Second we must show the lie that the subjective is necessarily non-absolute---that there is no such thing as a true perspective or a true opinion.

What we have to show is that truth is discovered, not constructed---but it is discovered by means of certain skills and practices which are taught. Any epistemology must, in order to be adequate, come up with something toward a theory of teaching, how it works in general, and how it works best.



Afterthought said:


> But how do we know what is the right method?



This is a tricky question---what method would you use to evaluate it? Could you justify this method?

Part of the trouble here is that methods are the kinds of things that are ingrained and learned through paying attention to instructors and practitioners. For example, in doing theology, there are certain theologians whose methods I particularly admire and seem to produce helpful insights. In doing philosophy, I find certain thinkers to use good methods and others to be less helpful in their approach. Evaluating methods is hard and is more intuitive than anything else.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Scripture addresses us as ones who are already in possession of these universals. E.g., God is, who is my neighbour, no lie is of the truth, etc.


Oh, that makes sense! So then with respect to scientific investigation, we are in possession of the knowledge that the universe is usually governed in a regular manner by God, and we have hope to figure out that manner. Perhaps though, the knowledge of that is built from other universals first?



armourbearer said:


> My statement certainly does look dangerous when it is thrown out there on its own. Recalling that I said this is what happens in light of the post-modern critique, let the unbeliever counter that he can infuse meaning into immanent things, but by his own statement, it is "his" meaning, not such that enables him to share anything immanent with another. Again, the point is that his transcendence has destroyed the reality that our personhood is bound to the immanent.


Ohh, so if I understand right, the unbeliever could infuse meaning into a statement, but that meaning could not be shared with another; even if two infused something with the same meaning, their background assumptions are so individualized that they still would not be able to share it? But as to the main point of criticism (humans transcending destroying their personhood), I'll need to think about that some more. It makes some sense that personhood is tied to immanence because we are finite, though I'm not sure that's all that you were getting at. It's the rest I'll need to think on some more. It probably doesn't help that this is the first time I've heard of such things as this "relational model" or truth being personal. 




Philip said:


> You have to do two things: first explode the idea that absolute truth (that is, things that are true in reality) is necessarily "objective" and capable of being dispassionately scrutinized---as Christians, we know that God is the truth and therefore truth is always personal. Second we must show the lie that the subjective is necessarily non-absolute---that there is no such thing as a true perspective or a true opinion.


There's an interesting idea I haven't considered before: subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute. Since this is the first time I've heard of some of this, how would you in addressing an unbeliever show both? And what do we mean when we say "truth is personal"?



Philip said:


> Evaluating methods is hard and is more intuitive than anything else.


Thanks! Those are some good points. It is kind of disappointing though that there isn't an easier way to evaluate methods. It tends to make them subjective, but if, as you mentioned above, subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute, I guess that point doesn't matter.


----------



## Philip

Afterthought said:


> There's an interesting idea I haven't considered before: subjective doesn't necessarily imply non-absolute. Since this is the first time I've heard of some of this, how would you in addressing an unbeliever show both?



I would start by simply talking about how the kinds of things that we believe spring from personal commitments. I would also show how the sciences proceed on the assumption that previous discoveries were genuine. We proceed in our knowledge by not reinventing the wheel, but rather taking the wheel for granted and proceeding with that assumption. The cultural baggage that we carry with us does get in the way, but it also is what makes any knowledge at all possible. Or, in the classroom, the teacher brings with her a set of values regarding education which she imparts to the students, who follow her instructions---it's highly subjective, but necessary for knowledge, and definitely absolute. If you refuse to co-operate with the teacher from the outset out of some misguided sense of empiricism, you will make little progress in learning.



Afterthought said:


> And what do we mean when we say "truth is personal"?



In an ultimate sense we simply mean that God is the truth. In a more immediate sense we mean that our apprehension of truth depends on a personal commitment to it.

---------- Post added at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------




Afterthought said:


> It is kind of disappointing though that there isn't an easier way to evaluate methods.



You're telling me. I'm hopelessly analytic and would very much like to be able to find methods for evaluating methods. However, I can't see a way of avoiding infinite regress and skepticism. The ironic thing here, of course, is that even these are methods.


----------



## jwright82

Afterthought said:


> Thanks all! I guess my biggest concern still is that I'm not sure how we build objectivity when the objective is inevitably colored by the subjective. While we could tie objectivity to God's self-revealed testimony, people could claim that we interpret natural revelation, and special revelation, differently because of our subjective background beliefs that cannot seem to be evaluated objectively because of their radical differences from person to person (and so the background beliefs seem only to be influenced by subjective factors, whether rational or irrational). They could also more easily claim the same sort of thing about the natural world (like in the investigations of science) because God's revelation doesn't reveal every universal for it. Perhaps I'm missing something important?



It is sort of a modernist dream that we must be objective and unbiased to be truthful. I don't stop being me when I go about learning stuff. 




Afterthought said:


> Is this because all our references to things immanent are ultimately circular due to finitude and our ever present individualized background beliefs? Couldn't an unbeliever counter by saying we infuse meaning into immanent things, and that is what's meaningful for us because by definition we have given it meaning?



Their guilty of the same thing, objectivity in this ultimate sense is a myth. Don't let them froce that upon you, just point out that it is impossible to stop being who we are when we come to the table. It is funny because the only ones that seem to really harp on this being unbiased thing is atheists, everyone else recognizes how foolish it is.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Philip said:


> I would start by simply talking about how the kinds of things that we believe spring from personal commitments. I would also show how the sciences proceed on the assumption that previous discoveries were genuine. We proceed in our knowledge by not reinventing the wheel, but rather taking the wheel for granted and proceeding with that assumption. The cultural baggage that we carry with us does get in the way, but it also is what makes any knowledge at all possible. Or, in the classroom, the teacher brings with her a set of values regarding education which she imparts to the students, who follow her instructions---it's highly subjective, but necessary for knowledge, and definitely absolute. If you refuse to co-operate with the teacher from the outset out of some misguided sense of empiricism, you will make little progress in learning.



I think I understand what you're saying, about how we must take some things on authority if we are ever to progress (if I have to rediscover pi before I can calculate the area of a circle, I'll never get anything done). But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.

I would say that the truth is always objective, because it does not change based on attitudes, feelings, or history. 2+2 will always equal four, no matter what baggage you're bringing to the table, and even if there were no humans in existence. Just as God would always be good, whether or not we can accept that, and even if we do not exist. Those things cannot change.

But our understandings of these truths will always be different, and therefore, subjective. So I would be comfortable saying that our beliefs are subjective. We both know God is good, but we will always understand that differently. We both believe that God demands justice, but we will probably pursue that in different ways.

I think that's what you were aiming for, I just want to be sure. Please correct me if I am mistaken.


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can one make judgements that their communities understanding of theology is faulty and that you need to find another community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure---this is not meant to imply that any one community's practices are perfect nor should it imply that no one set of practices is better than anothers. There may well be practices that are more adequate than others. Indeed, Scripture (and, to some extent, small-t tradition) gives us a common ground on which to dialogue with and evaluate other Christian traditions. However, you don't learn to exegete or read Scripture properly to any extent outside some tradition. This is why we are called to make disciples---when someone comes to faith, we as the church are supposed to mentor them and train them in righteousness. That's the way knowledge works, not just in theology and Christian practice, but in all of life. Even in the empirical sciences, there are accepted methods and truths that are handed down by tradition and which are taken for granted in the pursuit of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose my problem with your statement is that you are critiquing modern and postmodernism for not taking proper account of community etc. If at the end of the day, you are held responsible for your actions and beliefs regardless of which community you grow up with or join, then I am not sure what teeth your critique has. If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point. (To be fair, I have problems with both philosophies but just not at this point).
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


What I think Philip is getting at is that we learn to be reformed withen a community. My daughter is being raised to be reformed, she just doesn't know it. She couldn't articulate out what the difference is between being reformed and being anything else. She is being formed rather than so much taught. This implies not only head knowledge, like the catechism, but practices as well, praying before a meal and bed or not sleeping in church. And it is a particuler community that I inhabit that enforces at least by example how I am trying to form her so to speak, everyone else talks the same and does the same. 

Christians were worshipping long before they had systematic theologies, the first one was Origen's work in 218 AD. In fact it was these communaties that allowed for christian talk to develop into systematic thinking. We should say that our "talk" or even grammer as being reformed is the most biblical one there is. The grammer of the confession binds and determines how members of the community are to talk and think about certian subjects. The practices associated with the community bind and determine how we all act in this community.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------




Reformed Philosopher said:


> I think I understand what you're saying, about how we must take some things on authority if we are ever to progress (if I have to rediscover pi before I can calculate the area of a circle, I'll never get anything done). But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.
> 
> I would say that the truth is always objective, because it does not change based on attitudes, feelings, or history. 2+2 will always equal four, no matter what baggage you're bringing to the table, and even if there were no humans in existence. Just as God would always be good, whether or not we can accept that, and even if we do not exist. Those things cannot change.
> 
> But our understandings of these truths will always be different, and therefore, subjective. So I would be comfortable saying that our beliefs are subjective. We both know God is good, but we will always understand that differently. We both believe that God demands justice, but we will probably pursue that in different ways.
> 
> I think that's what you were aiming for, I just want to be sure. Please correct me if I am mistaken.



I think what he saying is that the whole objective/subjective distinction is not the cleanest way to view. In theory I can point out a purely objective (2+2=4) or a purely subjective thing (my favorate color is red) in practice things are not so cleanly divided. In my day to day activities I don't make such distinctions as I go about my buissness and that in no way endagers "truth". We bring with us an almost precognitve "knowledge", tacit knowlwedge, to every situation we encounter.

Tacit knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Philip

Reformed Philosopher said:


> But I'm a little confused about what you're calling subjective, so I want to make sure I've got that clear.



It's simply that everyone, by necessity starts from some standpoint, some point of view. There is no such thing as objectivity because personal commitments and values always figure into the equation.

This is why I prefer the term "absolute truth" simply because "objective truth" implies that we can be objective in our knowledge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are able to transcend their community, how is modernism or postmodernism problematic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they are able to transcend their community---I said that they are able to evaluate it. There is a difference. When one evaluates one's own community, one is doing so with the tools of that community. Take, for example, Charles Dickens' _Oliver Twist_. This book is a critique of English society in the mid-19th Century, but it is also a product of that society. One cannot evaluate anything except from a standpoint, and that standpoint is always influenced and shaped by a community---and there's nothing bad about this. I believe that humans are created to function in community.
Click to expand...


I disagree that one has to use the tools of said community in order to evaluate it. The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency. If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community. When various ancient societies sacrificed people to the sun in order to gain favor with god, that was problematic even if the entire society had decided that the Sun was to be worshiped as supreme.

If all you mean is that one is influenced by others (family, friends, rulers etc.), then okay, but I don't see the problem with Modernism and Postmodernism ignoring/assuming such and moving on to something else.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency.



How did you learn these? Chances are, you did so in a particular cultural context.



ChristianTrader said:


> If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community.



Not necessarily. Again, take the idea of an internal critique. There is no place outside of any culture from which to critique culture.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tools are the universal tools of reason and coherency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you learn these? Chances are, you did so in a particular cultural context.
Click to expand...


I would say that you were introduced to them in a particular context. However that context may have done a good or bad job with such. Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this was not true, then one could not reject a view of their community until they came in contact with views of another community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Again, take the idea of an internal critique. There is no place outside of any culture from which to critique culture.
Click to expand...


Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing? It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.



Can you elaborate as to what these responsibilities are and what the consequences of not fulfilling them might be?



ChristianTrader said:


> Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing?



Your own. What's the problem with this conclusion, exactly? If I critique American culture, how does that mean that I wasn't shaped by it? This seems to be a non-sequitor. Different cultures use reason in different ways, which is why they end up looking different. Innovation is simply putting ideas together in ways that none or few in your cultural context have done.



ChristianTrader said:


> It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.



You can't transcend culture---not in the way you're talking about. The best you can do is to look at culture from the standpoint of some other culture or cultural period.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your responsibilities do not stop based on how good a job your context did in teaching you such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate as to what these responsibilities are and what the consequences of not fulfilling them might be?
Click to expand...


For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, so if you critique culture based on the ultimate standards of reason and coherency, and come to a conclusion that no one in your current culture has come to, in what culture are you standing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own. What's the problem with this conclusion, exactly? If I critique American culture, how does that mean that I wasn't shaped by it? This seems to be a non-sequitor. Different cultures use reason in different ways, which is why they end up looking different. Innovation is simply putting ideas together in ways that none or few in your cultural context have done.
Click to expand...


The problem is that if you make culture that broad, then it starts to border on meaningless. Remember the issue was not that people are not being shaped by people around them etc., the issue was your critique of modernism and postmodernism for not properly taking such into account. What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you are saying that one cannot transcend your culture because any position taken will just be a result of your cultural context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't transcend culture---not in the way you're talking about. The best you can do is to look at culture from the standpoint of some other culture or cultural period.
Click to expand...


So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known? If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.



Ok. So? What does this have to do with whether one is capable of apprehending said laws objectively?



ChristianTrader said:


> What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?



Humanity. We are intended to function in community and even when we are critiquing a community, it is always within that context. This is why, by the way, revelation needs to come in the form of God taking on our likeness and our form of life. 



ChristianTrader said:


> So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known?



I didn't say that. I said that the tools that you have are the tools of your culture. Ways of knowing and apprehending are taught---but they can also be used for critique. Maybe I'm just missing your criticism here, but I'm not sure how a certain set of tools makes certain conclusions inevitable. It may make certain conclusions more likely, but not, I think, inevitable.



ChristianTrader said:


> If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?



I don't think that---I simply think that one's thinking and one's concerns are always conditioned by culture of one kind or another. What I'm rejecting here is enlightenment-style rationalism.


----------



## kappazei

"post-modernism suffers from its own self-created problems. It tells us that truth is a construct that people in power create to exercise rule over us. So what is their answer? To make truth a mere interpretation. What do they accomplish? They make the human being himself the lord of truth as if he is able to transcend life. "

Thank you so much for the above observation Rev. Winzer. I've had people (angry bitter people) say this to me ( that truth is a construct of the ruling elite) over the years and I just realized how much that comment had been bothering me. Hey, the Lord healed me just now from that old barb! Thank you, thank you, Jesus.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the moral law which is known from the created order. If your culture does not uphold or teach such, that does not relieve you of your obligations to keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So? What does this have to do with whether one is capable of apprehending said laws objectively?
Click to expand...


The point is that if ones culture says sleeping around is alright, then one does not need some other culture to tell you that such is wrong. If you buy such, then I suppose we don't really disagree.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is lost, if such is not taken into account?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity. We are intended to function in community and even when we are critiquing a community, it is always within that context. This is why, by the way, revelation needs to come in the form of God taking on our likeness and our form of life.
Click to expand...


But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation. That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse. Unless you want to say such (which I don't think you do), I am not sure what your critique of modernism and postmodernism is.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you grow up in a Muslim context, and only have access to writings by other Muslims, the things known from the created order that are against Islam, cannot be known?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the tools that you have are the tools of your culture. Ways of knowing and apprehending are taught---but they can also be used for critique. Maybe I'm just missing your criticism here, but I'm not sure how a certain set of tools makes certain conclusions inevitable. It may make certain conclusions more likely, but not, I think, inevitable.
Click to expand...


I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable. The issue is that it is not being used. I don't know how you can read, Romans 1 another way.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot appeal to some other period, then one is stuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that---I simply think that one's thinking and one's concerns are always conditioned by culture of one kind or another. What I'm rejecting here is enlightenment-style rationalism.
Click to expand...


And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.

CT


----------



## MW

kappazei said:


> Thank you so much for the above observation Rev. Winzer. I've had people (angry bitter people) say this to me ( that truth is a construct of the ruling elite) over the years and I just realized how much that comment had been bothering me. Hey, the Lord healed me just now from that old barb! Thank you, thank you, Jesus.



May God be praised for the knowledge of the truth that sets us free!


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> The point is that if ones culture says sleeping around is alright, then one does not need some other culture to tell you that such is wrong. If you buy such, then I suppose we don't really disagree.



If what you mean is simply that just because your culture tells you that sleeping around is all right doesn't make it so, then of course I agree. Sleeping around is wrong regardless of what anyone says. However, if you mean that reason alone could tell you this if you'd been brought up to think otherwise and had never been exposed to other views, that's much harder to maintain. My Thomistic side would like to agree with you, but I can't see how it would work practically.



ChristianTrader said:


> But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation.



General revelation is only possible because of God decreeing incarnation. There can be no true communication between God and man unless God becomes man. The whole book of Hebrews makes this point, showing how even the Old Testament makes sense only because it points to Jesus.



ChristianTrader said:


> That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse.



No, you're still condemned before God. What does that have to do with my point about how we acquire epistemic skills?



ChristianTrader said:


> I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable.



Ah, but how do you learn how to reason rightly? Who teaches you? We're back to pre-modern theories of pedagogy, such as I am advocating.



ChristianTrader said:


> And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.



I'd say it was way too effective: they went insane. You want some real rationalists using reason rigorously? Go read Bertrand Russell, or A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. You want to see where "objectivity" gets you? Read those guys. Myself, I'll stick with C.S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, and others who advocate a return to a pre-modern model.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if ones culture says sleeping around is alright, then one does not need some other culture to tell you that such is wrong. If you buy such, then I suppose we don't really disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you mean is simply that just because your culture tells you that sleeping around is all right doesn't make it so, then of course I agree. Sleeping around is wrong regardless of what anyone says. However, if you mean that reason alone could tell you this if you'd been brought up to think otherwise and had never been exposed to other views, that's much harder to maintain. My Thomistic side would like to agree with you, but I can't see how it would work practically.
Click to expand...


Well it becomes easier when you first ask, what is the point of X or Y.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General revelation is only possible because of God decreeing incarnation. There can be no true communication between God and man unless God becomes man. The whole book of Hebrews makes this point, showing how even the Old Testament makes sense only because it points to Jesus.
Click to expand...


My point is that General Revelation was clear before the incarnation. General Revelation also points to a "completing of the story" in Special Revelation.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're still condemned before God. What does that have to do with my point about how we acquire epistemic skills?
Click to expand...


If one is condemned despite not being given the epistemic situation to know otherwise, then the fairness card gets a bit fuzzy.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but how do you learn how to reason rightly? Who teaches you? We're back to pre-modern theories of pedagogy, such as I am advocating.
Click to expand...


The exact process is secondary to the question of their being a process to find.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it was way too effective: they went insane. You want some real rationalists using reason rigorously? Go read Bertrand Russell, or A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. You want to see where "objectivity" gets you? Read those guys. Myself, I'll stick with C.S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, and others who advocate a return to a pre-modern model.
Click to expand...


I would say that your examples are not good examples of reason used rigorously.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation. That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse. Unless you want to say such (which I don't think you do), I am not sure what your critique of modernism and postmodernism is.



Hermonta, "general revelation" is not a self-interpreting revelation, is it? I fully agree that there is an objective revelation, but I cannot see how an individual can hope to properly understand and appreciate that revelation apart from communion with the Revealer. Paley's watch might point to a watchmaker, but without the watchmaker the watch can never explain "why" it exists. There is no such thing as impersonal and purposeless morality. The automated responses of a machine do not allow for personal development and maturity.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even before God did such, we still knew and were responsible to know various things due to General Revelation. That we function in community is cool and true, but at the end of the day, "My culture didn't teach me that", is not a valid excuse. Unless you want to say such (which I don't think you do), I am not sure what your critique of modernism and postmodernism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta, "general revelation" is not a self-interpreting revelation, is it? I fully agree that there is an objective revelation, but I cannot see how an individual can hope to properly understand and appreciate that revelation apart from communion with the Revealer. Paley's watch might point to a watchmaker, but without the watchmaker the watch can never explain "why" it exists. There is no such thing as impersonal and purposeless morality. The automated responses of a machine do not allow for personal development and maturity.
Click to expand...


I would ask, if general revelation is not self-interpreting "to some extent", then how could one be certain that they are listening to the voice of the creator vs. some imposter?

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Well it becomes easier when you first ask, what is the point of X or Y.



No it doesn't. Different communities answer this one differently.



ChristianTrader said:


> If one is condemned despite not being given the epistemic situation to know otherwise, then the fairness card gets a bit fuzzy.



Fairness card? General revelation is there for all to see---it's enough to condemn. That's the position that the confession takes.



ChristianTrader said:


> The exact process is secondary to the question of their being a process to find.



Any epistemology that doesn't address the question of how you learn to reason (not just how you reason) is not going to come up with anything useful. This is my critique of modernism. Post-modernism questions the learning process but fails to recognize the necessity of _some_ learning process and so falls into just as much silliness as rationalism does.



ChristianTrader said:


> I would say that your examples are not good examples of reason used rigorously.



Funny, they all make you and I look vague and haphazard in our reasoning. Honestly, they are probably more rigorous in their methods than I am (Russell's analysis is some of the best I've ever read).



ChristianTrader said:


> I would ask, if general revelation is not self-interpreting "to some extent", then how could one be certain that they are listening to the voice of the creator vs. some imposter?



That's their question. My response is that of course they aren't---they're fleeing from God. They have a personal commitment to God not being there because they've built their lives on that premise.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

ChristianTrader said:


> I would ask, if general revelation is not self-interpreting "to some extent", then how could one be certain that they are listening to the voice of the creator vs. some imposter?



We would have to say it's the work of the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Calvin writes:
"Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them." -_Institutes_. Bk 1, Ch 5.

And later:
"For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any books however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly." -_Institutes_. Bk 1, Ch 6.



Philip said:


> I'd say it was way too effective: they went insane. You want some real rationalists using reason rigorously? Go read Bertrand Russell, or A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. You want to see where "objectivity" gets you? Read those guys. Myself, I'll stick with C.S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, and others who advocate a return to a pre-modern model.



Logical positivism didn't fail because they were too objective, it failed because it was a self-refuting philosophy.


----------



## Philip

Reformed Philosopher said:


> Logical positivism didn't fail because they were too objective, it failed because it was a self-refuting philosophy.



Yes, there was that slight problem. But that's the kind of thing you get when you try that hard to be objective.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Philip said:


> Yes, there was that slight problem. But that's the kind of thing you get when you try that hard to be objective.



If I understand you correctly, you would agree with me when I say, "There are objective facts that do not change. But our understanding of these facts is never objective."

It doesn't seem like you want to be a relativist, where the facts themselves change based on how they are perceived (I think you see the danger in this for a Christian).

Am I correct in saying those things?


----------



## jwright82

ChristianTrader said:


> I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable. The issue is that it is not being used. I don't know how you can read, Romans 1 another way.



It is given that natural revelation reveals. But it is a simplification of the epistemological situation to move from that to natural theology. The unbeleiver can and does interpret the world from a non-theistic point of view, unsuccessfully of course. But the knowledge situation is complicated. 




ChristianTrader said:


> And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.



Yeah this and natural theology leads to an autonomous view of reason and nature that postmodernism throughly destroyed, along with itself.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it becomes easier when you first ask, what is the point of X or Y.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. Different communities answer this one differently.
Click to expand...


I believe your response only makes sense if you take the position that there is no "point" to know (an ontological point) or that each each position is equally coherent so that one cannot distinguish between the right position and a false one (an epistemological point). Do you hold to either position?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is condemned despite not being given the epistemic situation to know otherwise, then the fairness card gets a bit fuzzy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairness card? General revelation is there for all to see---it's enough to condemn. That's the position that the confession takes.
Click to expand...


Right, and it does not take the position that one needs the Bible to be responsible for the clarity of general revelation.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact process is secondary to the question of their being a process to find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any epistemology that doesn't address the question of how you learn to reason (not just how you reason) is not going to come up with anything useful. This is my critique of modernism. Post-modernism questions the learning process but fails to recognize the necessity of _some_ learning process and so falls into just as much silliness as rationalism does.
Click to expand...


But again, this not modernism's problem. Its problem was that it was not critical enough about its assumptions/presuppositions. Even if you wish to say that it failed to recognize the necessity of a learning process, it still used one. Either it was correct one or a false one.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that your examples are not good examples of reason used rigorously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, they all make you and I look vague and haphazard in our reasoning. Honestly, they are probably more rigorous in their methods than I am (Russell's analysis is some of the best I've ever read).
Click to expand...


I stand by my statement. I did not deny that they were high IQ and worked very seriously at their craft. My position is something along the lines of if one assumes 1+1=3, then works hard at the implications, one could come up with an interesting system, but it still would not be rigorous because one did not properly test their foundations for truth.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask, if general revelation is not self-interpreting "to some extent", then how could one be certain that they are listening to the voice of the creator vs. some imposter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's their question. My response is that of course they aren't---they're fleeing from God. They have a personal commitment to God not being there because they've built their lives on that premise.
Click to expand...


I agree that they are running from the truth. The issue is whether or not we will make the bare claim or put teeth into it by clearly showing the truth from which they are running.

CT

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------




jwright82 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that right reason makes belief in the Christian God inevitable. The issue is that it is not being used. I don't know how you can read, Romans 1 another way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is given that natural revelation reveals. But it is a simplification of the epistemological situation to move from that to natural theology. The unbeleiver can and does interpret the world from a non-theistic point of view, unsuccessfully of course. But the knowledge situation is complicated.
Click to expand...


If you can't make that move, then why are we held responsible for what is revealed?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am supporting something along the lines of enlightment-style rationalism. I think such folks were not critical enough in their use of reason, and that is the reason, it was not as effective as they had hoped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah this and natural theology leads to an autonomous view of reason and nature that postmodernism throughly destroyed, along with itself.
Click to expand...


Postmodernism did nothing of the sort. It destroyed reason used badly.

CT


----------



## Philip

Reformed Philosopher said:


> If I understand you correctly, you would agree with me when I say, "There are objective facts that do not change. But our understanding of these facts is never objective."
> 
> It doesn't seem like you want to be a relativist, where the facts themselves change based on how they are perceived (I think you see the danger in this for a Christian).



I would say that the term "objective fact" is a category mistake. What you mean is simply that there are things that are true regardless of how they are perceived or whether they are believed, and I agree. I just think that "objective" is a bad way to describe them given that it is an epistemological term. We might instead call them true truths or true facts or absolute truths.



ChristianTrader said:


> I believe your response only makes sense if you take the position that there is no "point" to know (an ontological point) or that each each position is equally coherent so that one cannot distinguish between the right position and a false one (an epistemological point). Do you hold to either position?



Not necessarily. Part of what you are failing to take seriously is the effect of the fall of reason and the extent to which your cultural background influences the way you reason and see the world. The problem is that "right reason" would include not just right starting points and right logical deductions, but right emotions, attitudes, commitments, and motivations.



ChristianTrader said:


> Right, and it does not take the position that one needs the Bible to be responsible for the clarity of general revelation.



I never said this. Nonetheless no one will ever see the point of general revelation without the guidance of the spirit.



ChristianTrader said:


> My position is something along the lines of if one assumes 1+1=3, then works hard at the implications, one could come up with an interesting system, but it still would not be rigorous because one did not properly test their foundations for truth.



Yes it would. 1+1=3 works just fine in certain systems of mathematics. It's not the ordinary language of mathematics, but it's a valid one. My mathematically-minded friends do stuff like this all the time.



ChristianTrader said:


> agree that they are running from the truth. The issue is whether or not we will make the bare claim or put teeth into it by clearly showing the truth from which they are running.



Ok---so how does this affect the extent to which facts have to be interpreted again?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe your response only makes sense if you take the position that there is no "point" to know (an ontological point) or that each each position is equally coherent so that one cannot distinguish between the right position and a false one (an epistemological point). Do you hold to either position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Part of what you are failing to take seriously is the effect of the fall of reason and the extent to which your cultural background influences the way you reason and see the world. The problem is that "right reason" would include not just right starting points and right logical deductions, but right emotions, attitudes, commitments, and motivations.
Click to expand...


I am not sure what you mean by the "fall of reason". The law of non-contradiction didn't fall. The Law of excluded middle did not fall etc. If you will expound on what you mean by reason, falling I will be able to respond in a better fashion.

If reason is not powerful enough to get through your cultural background then postmodernism wins. Such powerful acid would eat through everything including the ability to come to a unified consensus on Scriptural interpretations etc. Everyone should just go ahead and do whatever is right in their own eyes.

Lastly, you are right about the implications of right reason. However you fail to realize that one's emotions, attitudes, commitments, and motivations are influenced by what one believes to be the truth. For example, one's view of a beautiful woman will change if one learns that she is a liar, unchaste etc. Motivations, Commitments etc. do not exist in a vacuum.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and it does not take the position that one needs the Bible to be responsible for the clarity of general revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said this. Nonetheless no one will ever see the point of general revelation without the guidance of the spirit.
Click to expand...


Taken in a qualified sense, I have no problem with the statement. Taken in an unqualified sense, the question becomes what does one mean by general revelation being clear and able to condemn? If it is able to condemn it must be clear (as is). The problem is rebellion against that which is clear. The Spirit breaks our rebellion. 



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is something along the lines of if one assumes 1+1=3, then works hard at the implications, one could come up with an interesting system, but it still would not be rigorous because one did not properly test their foundations for truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would. 1+1=3 works just fine in certain systems of mathematics. It's not the ordinary language of mathematics, but it's a valid one. My mathematically-minded friends do stuff like this all the time.
Click to expand...


This is similar to arguments between aristotelian logic and classic logic. Yes in certain qualified sense, 1+1=3 can work out, but not if you attempt to use in an unqualified sense. If 1+1=3 (or something similar), is a basic assumption of your worldview, it will collapse at some point, because such does no reflect reality.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> agree that they are running from the truth. The issue is whether or not we will make the bare claim or put teeth into it by clearly showing the truth from which they are running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok---so how does this affect the extent to which facts have to be interpreted again?
Click to expand...


It says that because facts have to be interpreted does not imply a myriad of sound interpretations.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> I am not sure what you mean by the "fall of reason". The law of non-contradiction didn't fall. The Law of excluded middle did not fall etc. If you will expound on what you mean by reason, falling I will be able to respond in a better fashion.



I meant the effects of the fall on reason and our reasoning abilities. Yes, we use these things and they are right, but we always do so with mixed motives---right reason is no longer present in fallen man.



ChristianTrader said:


> If reason is not powerful enough to get through your cultural background then postmodernism wins.



No it doesn't. Premodernism is still an option.



ChristianTrader said:


> Lastly, you are right about the implications of right reason. However you fail to realize that one's emotions, attitudes, commitments, and motivations are influenced by what one believes to be the truth. For example, one's view of a beautiful woman will change if one learns that she is a liar, unchaste etc. Motivations, Commitments etc. do not exist in a vacuum.



Ok, so we've got a circle: there's this interplay between beliefs and motives. What was your point, exactly?



ChristianTrader said:


> If it is able to condemn it must be clear (as is).



It must be clear to those with eyes to see. Clarity is subjective and dependent on a variety of factors.



ChristianTrader said:


> Yes in certain qualified sense, 1+1=3 can work out, but not if you attempt to use in an unqualified sense. If 1+1=3 (or something similar), is a basic assumption of your worldview, it will collapse at some point, because such does no reflect reality.



Ok, but how does this reflect a lack of rigour?



ChristianTrader said:


> It says that because facts have to be interpreted does not imply a myriad of sound interpretations.



Where have I denied this? I have merely claimed that there may be a variety of valid interpretations. Further, certain questions may indeed have multiple right answers depending on cultural context. For example, if someone here in the south asks me how I liked her food, I am more or less obligated to say or imply that I liked it, regardless of the fact of the matter.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by the "fall of reason". The law of non-contradiction didn't fall. The Law of excluded middle did not fall etc. If you will expound on what you mean by reason, falling I will be able to respond in a better fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the effects of the fall on reason and our reasoning abilities. Yes, we use these things and they are right, but we always do so with mixed motives---right reason is no longer present in fallen man.
Click to expand...


If the fall messes up our reasoning abilities then how can we be without excuse? Romans 1 speaks to the current fallen situation and makes the claim that the problem is not our reasoning faculties, but instead rebellion. 



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If reason is not powerful enough to get through your cultural background then postmodernism wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. Premodernism is still an option.
Click to expand...


Premodernism does not help. Premodernism lost in a fair fight a long time ago. At the end of the day, one will have to distinguish between one's cultural biases and the truth. If you think Premodern thought can do this, then fine. However, I am not seeing how such can be done without reason carrying a heavy load.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, you are right about the implications of right reason. However you fail to realize that one's emotions, attitudes, commitments, and motivations are influenced by what one believes to be the truth. For example, one's view of a beautiful woman will change if one learns that she is a liar, unchaste etc. Motivations, Commitments etc. do not exist in a vacuum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so we've got a circle: there's this interplay between beliefs and motives. What was your point, exactly?
Click to expand...


I am not claiming a circle. I am claiming that reason and truth are more basic than motives, attitudes, etc. Now certain motives and attitudes can prevent one from accepting various things as true. But eventually reason will break through.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is able to condemn it must be clear (as is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be clear to those with eyes to see. Clarity is subjective and dependent on a variety of factors.
Click to expand...


To be without excuse, something must not just be objectively clear but subjectively clear. There are many truths (higher level math etc.) that are objectively clear but not subjectively clear. We do not say that a person is without excuse for denying or being agnostic about it. We do not call it sin, when one does not know the second derivative for a certain function.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in certain qualified sense, 1+1=3 can work out, but not if you attempt to use in an unqualified sense. If 1+1=3 (or something similar), is a basic assumption of your worldview, it will collapse at some point, because such does no reflect reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but how does this reflect a lack of rigour?
Click to expand...


Um, so not testing if one's foundations are true is okay while one is claiming the highest rigor?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that because facts have to be interpreted does not imply a myriad of sound interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I denied this? I have merely claimed that there may be a variety of valid interpretations. Further, certain questions may indeed have multiple right answers depending on cultural context. For example, if someone here in the south asks me how I liked her food, I am more or less obligated to say or imply that I liked it, regardless of the fact of the matter.
Click to expand...


How does multiple valid interpretation mesh with the claim that Christian Theism is so clear that one must run in the other direction to deny it? No one has denied that there are certain subjects with multiple valid interpretations. The issue is whether or not this is one of them.

CT


----------



## Loopie

ChristianTrader said:


> If the fall messes up our reasoning abilities then how can we be without excuse? Romans 1 speaks to the current fallen situation and makes the claim that the problem is not our reasoning faculties, but instead rebellion.



Just to throw in my two cents, I think you are misunderstanding Philip when he says that the fall has messed up our ability to reason, and that fallen man does not 'reason rightly'. Obviously the human brain still 'functions', even after the fall. When we talk about a person no longer being able to 'reason rightly', we aren't talking about a person taking in information (sight, sound, touch). The brain still functions, but reasoning involves interpretation. Furthermore, humans are not calculators. We don't 'reason' without having a will. So when the fallen man is bombarded with constant information from the universe around him, he is trying to understand/interpret that information (he reasons). He does correctly see this and that object, and he does correctly hear this and that sound (assuming he is not physically impaired). But since reasoning involves human will (and his will is an enslaved will) fallen man ALWAYS reasons from the position of a rebel against God. That is why fallen man is without excuse. It is not a matter of physical ability that hinders a man from reasoning rightly, it is a man's OWN WILL that leads him to reason the way he does. His reasoning is enslaved because his will is enslaved. He is a slave to sin.

I mean, we can see some general examples of this in our children. When you tell your child not to do something (when you know very well that they will do it anyway), and they do it, aren't they still without excuse? If you gave your child a simple instruction, but they were unwilling to do it, aren't you justified in punishing them? So when the fallen man stands before God, and God asks him why he did not bow the knee, the only answer the fallen man can give is that he was unwilling to bow the knee. And that is no excuse.


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> If the fall messes up our reasoning abilities then how can we be without excuse?



Because it's our own fault.



ChristianTrader said:


> Premodernism does not help. Premodernism lost in a fair fight a long time ago.



Then why are you following a pre-modern religion?



ChristianTrader said:


> At the end of the day, one will have to distinguish between one's cultural biases and the truth.



Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean that on certain issues one culture may be better than another, then of course I agree. But let's be careful not to forget that we're talking epistemology not ontology here.



ChristianTrader said:


> I am claiming that reason and truth are more basic than motives, attitudes, etc. Now certain motives and attitudes can prevent one from accepting various things as true. But eventually reason will break through.



Funny how it rarely works that way in practice.

I think that you are failing to take seriously the real complexity of the ways in which we come to believe things and how we come to know things. How much use would methods resulting from this be in a classroom with six-year-olds? Let's take six-year-olds as our ideal epistemic subjects.



ChristianTrader said:


> How does multiple valid interpretation mesh with the claim that Christian Theism is so clear that one must run in the other direction to deny it? No one has denied that there are certain subjects with multiple valid interpretations. The issue is whether or not this is one of them.



This isn't what we've been discussing. We've been discussing the possibility of being objective. Of course that's impossible: we're subjects.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the fall messes up our reasoning abilities then how can we be without excuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's our own fault.
Click to expand...


We are without excuse because Adam fell?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premodernism does not help. Premodernism lost in a fair fight a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you following a pre-modern religion?
Click to expand...


You are moving from a worldview (Premodernism) to a claim about an objective fact that existed along with a worldview.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, one will have to distinguish between one's cultural biases and the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean that on certain issues one culture may be better than another, then of course I agree. But let's be careful not to forget that we're talking epistemology not ontology here.
Click to expand...


At the end of the day, we have to deal with both.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am claiming that reason and truth are more basic than motives, attitudes, etc. Now certain motives and attitudes can prevent one from accepting various things as true. But eventually reason will break through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how it rarely works that way in practice.
> 
> I think that you are failing to take seriously the real complexity of the ways in which we come to believe things and how we come to know things. How much use would methods resulting from this be in a classroom with six-year-olds? Let's take six-year-olds as our ideal epistemic subjects.
Click to expand...


I have no problem saying that the world is complicated. The two main questions are 1)Do we therefore throw up our hands and say, "everyone do what is right in their own eyes", and 2)Why is there so little agreement, and can we get past such?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does multiple valid interpretation mesh with the claim that Christian Theism is so clear that one must run in the other direction to deny it? No one has denied that there are certain subjects with multiple valid interpretations. The issue is whether or not this is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't what we've been discussing. We've been discussing the possibility of being objective. Of course that's impossible: we're subjects.
Click to expand...


If we cannot be objective, then why are we being held to such a standard?

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> We are without excuse because Adam fell?



"In Adam's fall we sinned all."



ChristianTrader said:


> You are moving from a worldview (Premodernism) to a claim about an objective fact that existed along with a worldview.



Hermonta, the whole of Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. To accept what it teaches, you must accept the way that it teaches. If Christianity is true, then modernism and rationalism are false religions.



ChristianTrader said:


> At the end of the day, we have to deal with both.



Yes, but one thing at a time.



ChristianTrader said:


> Do we therefore throw up our hands and say, "everyone do what is right in their own eyes"



Obviously not---I'm a Christian, not an existentialist or a postmodern.



ChristianTrader said:


> Why is there so little agreement, and can we get past such?



Depends on the issue. Certain disagreements can be resolved to an extent, while others remain fuzzy. It's generally accepted that at the end of the the day there's a right and a wrong answer as to the existence of God; it's a bit more difficult to decide what to say when the nice southern lady asks what I thought of the atrocious casserole (just to be clear, I pulled the example out of thin air---all of the sweet southern ladies I know are wondeful cooks).

You'll also find that even on this board, there are deep disagreements over certain issues despite the fact that we're all using the same standards.



ChristianTrader said:


> If we cannot be objective, then why are we being held to such a standard?



We aren't. We're held to God's standard, not an objective standard. Objective standards are things like the metric system or the English system: they involve no value judgments and can never be in conflict with one another. God's standard is reflective of God's character and so it is absolute, but most certainly not objective because God is not simply an object among objects: God is a person and therefore His standard is personal.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Philip said:


> Hermonta, the whole of Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. To accept what it teaches, you must accept the way that it teaches. If Christianity is true, then modernism and rationalism are false religions.



Whoa, whoa, whoa. I agree that Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. I agree that to properly understand what Scripture teaches, we must understand the context, perspective, and ideas that produced it. But I do not believe that to accept the truths of Christianity (as expressed in the creeds and forms of unity) we have to accept a premodern worldview.

Genesis presents a cosmology where the sky is under a big dome, inside of which the stars and sun are present. On top of the dome is more water, and it rains when gates in the dome open. I can recognize that this was the worldview of the author, and accept the fundamental truths it teaches me about God, without believing that we're actually looking up at a giant clear dome peppered with little stars.


----------



## Philip

Reformed Philosopher said:


> But I do not believe that to accept the truths of Christianity (as expressed in the creeds and forms of unity) we have to accept a premodern worldview.



I think we do. I think that acceptance of Christianity and the Christian view of things, one has to reject both modernism and postmodernism. Therefore pre-modern thought is our model.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are without excuse because Adam fell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In Adam's fall we sinned all."
Click to expand...


I hope you don't believe that such answers my question! The Bible never says that we are without excuse due to Adam's Fall. It says that we are without excuse because of the clarity of the revelation from the created order.

For example, After Achan's sin at AI, he, his family and his animals were all killed due to the Solidarity/Headship of the Achan over the situation. One does not need/nor would it make sense to say that all killed were without excuse.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are moving from a worldview (Premodernism) to a claim about an objective fact that existed along with a worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta, the whole of Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. To accept what it teaches, you must accept the way that it teaches. If Christianity is true, then modernism and rationalism are false religions.
Click to expand...


Actually it seems that the premodern viewpoint denies the certainty spoken of numerous times in the Biblical text. So if one wants to start issuing charges of false religions, we should perhaps start there.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, we have to deal with both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but one thing at a time.
Click to expand...


No doubt



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we therefore throw up our hands and say, "everyone do what is right in their own eyes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not---I'm a Christian, not an existentialist or a postmodern.
Click to expand...


The questions were partially rhetorical.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there so little agreement, and can we get past such?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the issue. Certain disagreements can be resolved to an extent, while others remain fuzzy. It's generally accepted that at the end of the the day there's a right and a wrong answer as to the existence of God; it's a bit more difficult to decide what to say when the nice southern lady asks what I thought of the atrocious casserole (just to be clear, I pulled the example out of thin air---all of the sweet southern ladies I know are wondeful cooks).
> 
> You'll also find that even on this board, there are deep disagreements over certain issues despite the fact that we're all using the same standards.
Click to expand...


That there are deep long standing disagreements does not imply that the issue cannot be resolved. To claim such is to go beyond the evidence.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we cannot be objective, then why are we being held to such a standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't. We're held to God's standard, not an objective standard. Objective standards are things like the metric system or the English system: they involve no value judgments and can never be in conflict with one another. God's standard is reflective of God's character and so it is absolute, but most certainly not objective because God is not simply an object among objects: God is a person and therefore His standard is personal.
Click to expand...


A personal God and natural law are not mutually exclusive. That value judgments exist does imply a hierarchy of values and a conflict of values does not imply that such cannot be resolved.

CT

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------




Reformed Philosopher said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta, the whole of Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. To accept what it teaches, you must accept the way that it teaches. If Christianity is true, then modernism and rationalism are false religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa, whoa, whoa. I agree that Scripture is written from a premodern perspective. I agree that to properly understand what Scripture teaches, we must understand the context, perspective, and ideas that produced it. But I do not believe that to accept the truths of Christianity (as expressed in the creeds and forms of unity) we have to accept a premodern worldview.
> 
> Genesis presents a cosmology where the sky is under a big dome, inside of which the stars and sun are present. On top of the dome is more water, and it rains when gates in the dome open. I can recognize that this was the worldview of the author, and accept the fundamental truths it teaches me about God, without believing that we're actually looking up at a giant clear dome peppered with little stars.
Click to expand...


bylogos: Genesis and Ancient Cosmology


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> I hope you don't believe that such answers my question! The Bible never says that we are without excuse due to Adam's Fall. It says that we are without excuse because of the clarity of the revelation from the created order.



Ok, so why are there atheists? To an atheist it isn't clear. Again, you assume that clarity is absolute and "objective." I don't. It's true that creation declares the glory of God, but man has willfully blinded Himself to it.



ChristianTrader said:


> Actually it seems that the premodern viewpoint denies the certainty spoken of numerous times in the Biblical text.



Depends on what you mean by certainty. Certainty is a threshold concept, not an absolute one. I am fairly certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but a bit less certain that it will rain. I have a measure of certainty that I will get certain things accomplished today. You're assuming a Cartesian definition of Scripture that the Bible doesn't.



ChristianTrader said:


> That there are deep long standing disagreements does not imply that the issue cannot be resolved.



No, but it should give us pause. Further, to resolve a disagreement entails getting all involved parties to agree that you have, in fact, resolved it. I doubt very much that you are that persuasive.



ChristianTrader said:


> A personal God and natural law are not mutually exclusive. That value judgments exist does imply a hierarchy of values and a conflict of values does not imply that such cannot be resolved.



I'm confused as to how this is supposed to conflict with what I have been saying. I think that there are questions with multiple right answers---does this somehow make me a total relativist? We have to understand that if there is natural law, that it too is personal and flows from the character of God---it's not objective because God is not objective. To be objective is not to see the world rightly: to be objective is to not see the world at all.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't believe that such answers my question! The Bible never says that we are without excuse due to Adam's Fall. It says that we are without excuse because of the clarity of the revelation from the created order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so why are there atheists? To an atheist it isn't clear. Again, you assume that clarity is absolute and "objective." I don't. It's true that creation declares the glory of God, but man has willfully blinded Himself to it.
Click to expand...


I'll do you better and state why there are not just atheists but also people who subscribe to false relgions.

Romans 3:10-12
_10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one._

Also just the phrasing willful blindness and not simply blindness implies that you are acting in a fashion that you know is inappropriate. If you don't know it is inappropriate, then one should not call it willful. I also do not understand what willful blindness means when there is no clarity in how one should act.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it seems that the premodern viewpoint denies the certainty spoken of numerous times in the Biblical text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by certainty. Certainty is a threshold concept, not an absolute one. I am fairly certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but a bit less certain that it will rain. I have a measure of certainty that I will get certain things accomplished today. You're assuming a Cartesian definition of Scripture that the Bible doesn't.
Click to expand...


Actually you have not demonstrated at any point, that I am "overreading" Scripture on this issue. Your writings thus far go along the lines, of you believing Scripture to be premodern and such a view does not have as strong a view of certainty as I have, therefore I am wrong about what Scripture says.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That there are deep long standing disagreements does not imply that the issue cannot be resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it should give us pause. Further, to resolve a disagreement entails getting all involved parties to agree that you have, in fact, resolved it. I doubt very much that you are that persuasive.
Click to expand...


Actually resolving does not entail getting everyone to agree. Such can come substantially later. For example, one can solve a hard math problem, then take a substantial amount of time answering objections. One doesnt say that one finally solved the problem when the last person signs on. Now people will eventually sign on if the problem was actually solved or resolved.

I do stand with Aristotle on this point - "Every failure of truth to persuade reflects the failure of its advocates".



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> A personal God and natural law are not mutually exclusive. That value judgments exist does imply a hierarchy of values and a conflict of values does not imply that such cannot be resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused as to how this is supposed to conflict with what I have been saying. I think that there are questions with multiple right answers---does this somehow make me a total relativist? We have to understand that if there is natural law, that it too is personal and flows from the character of God---it's not objective because God is not objective. To be objective is not to see the world rightly: to be objective is to not see the world at all.
Click to expand...


The main question that I am having now is what you mean by the term objective. What I mean by the term is that if something is objectively true, then when someone comes to a contradictory conclusion, I can say that they simply are wrong and need find the flaw in their reasoning.

That everyone believes there are multiple right answers to some questions is unremarkable. The question concerns the issues that we have been discussion.

Lastly, I have no issue with someone saying that natural law is personal etc. However such adds nothing to the discussion. No matter what your relationship is to the creator, if you deny what natural law reveals then it simply shows your willful blindness.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Also just the phrasing willful blindness and not simply blindness implies that you are acting in a fashion that you know is inappropriate. If you don't know it is inappropriate, then one should not call it willful. I also do not understand what willful blindness means when there is no clarity in how one should act.



It's willfull because it's a participation in Adam's rebellion. It's tacit, not overt; attitudinal, not propositional.



ChristianTrader said:


> Your writings thus far go along the lines, of you believing Scripture to be premodern and such a view does not have as strong a view of certainty as I have, therefore I am wrong about what Scripture says.



I'm just using the ordinary notion of certainty. I've still to be shown why it's inadequate or how reading modernity into the Bible is supposed to be rightly interpreting the word of Truth.



ChristianTrader said:


> Actually resolving does not entail getting everyone to agree.



Of course it does---if they still disagree, then you haven't resolved their disagreement.



ChristianTrader said:


> Such can come substantially later. For example, one can solve a hard math problem, then take a substantial amount of time answering objections. One doesnt say that one finally solved the problem when the last person signs on. Now people will eventually sign on if the problem was actually solved or resolved.



Solving a math problem is different than solving a disagreement. Solving a disagreement involves persons, not just facts.



ChristianTrader said:


> The main question that I am having now is what you mean by the term objective. What I mean by the term is that if something is objectively true, then when someone comes to a contradictory conclusion, I can say that they simply are wrong and need find the flaw in their reasoning.



This isn't objectivity. Objectivity is the notion that there is a such thing as seeing truth without bias or precommitment. Such is clearly nonsense---one doesn't accept truth unless one has a precommitment to follow the truth wherever it leads. This is a prerational commitment.



ChristianTrader said:


> No matter what your relationship is to the creator, if you deny what natural law reveals then it simply shows your willful blindness.



So there are no legitimate moral disagreements among Christians? I find this an odd statement. I have had moral disagreements with many Christians over the years, but I still count many of them among my close friends and brothers in Christ.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also just the phrasing willful blindness and not simply blindness implies that you are acting in a fashion that you know is inappropriate. If you don't know it is inappropriate, then one should not call it willful. I also do not understand what willful blindness means when there is no clarity in how one should act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's willfull because it's a participation in Adam's rebellion. It's tacit, not overt; attitudinal, not propositional.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with such a position. However it still cashes out that they know that they are behaving inappropriately by not seeking the truth on the issue. If they would properly seek they would have their propositions etc.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your writings thus far go along the lines, of you believing Scripture to be premodern and such a view does not have as strong a view of certainty as I have, therefore I am wrong about what Scripture says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just using the ordinary notion of certainty. I've still to be shown why it's inadequate or how reading modernity into the Bible is supposed to be rightly interpreting the word of Truth.
Click to expand...


Now you are the one who started with the false religion claims. If you start there, you should have a better position, than "no one has shown me that my position is wrong".



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually resolving does not entail getting everyone to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does---if they still disagree, then you haven't resolved their disagreement.
Click to expand...


I explained what I meant. A person can attempt to maintain an argument even when it is dead. The issue is not resolved only when they see that they are beaten.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such can come substantially later. For example, one can solve a hard math problem, then take a substantial amount of time answering objections. One doesnt say that one finally solved the problem when the last person signs on. Now people will eventually sign on if the problem was actually solved or resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solving a math problem is different than solving a disagreement. Solving a disagreement involves persons, not just facts.
Click to expand...


It looks like we are arguing over semantics. You consider the situation resolved when everyone sees it, while I see it resolved, when the issues are nailed down, not when everyone finally sees the issues are nailed down.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question that I am having now is what you mean by the term objective. What I mean by the term is that if something is objectively true, then when someone comes to a contradictory conclusion, I can say that they simply are wrong and need find the flaw in their reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't objectivity. Objectivity is the notion that there is a such thing as seeing truth without bias or precommitment. Such is clearly nonsense---one doesn't accept truth unless one has a precommitment to follow the truth wherever it leads. This is a prerational commitment.
Click to expand...


If you don't like calling such objectivity, then that is fine. It is enough to support my position. That is all I am going for currently.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what your relationship is to the creator, if you deny what natural law reveals then it simply shows your willful blindness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no legitimate moral disagreements among Christians? I find this an odd statement. I have had moral disagreements with many Christians over the years, but I still count many of them among my close friends and brothers in Christ.
Click to expand...


I was thinking in terms of unbelievers, and see your point. I withdraw the statement.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> If they would properly seek they would have their propositions etc.



Ok, but properly is the key: you can't know something if you won't believe it, and you won't believe it unless you have the right attitudes and precommitments.



ChristianTrader said:


> Now you are the one who started with the false religion claims. If you start there, you should have a better position, than "no one has shown me that my position is wrong".



Hermonta, you're the one bringing modernist innovations into our discussion, not me. I'm assuming a perfectly ordinary everyday definition and usage of certainty, so the burden is on you to show me that the Bible's usage isn't the ordinary one.

Much of our disagreement here stems from what I was saying earlier: I don't think that facts can be objective for the simple reason that objectivity is an attitude. Facts don't have attitudes; people have attitudes. To know something, one has to be affected toward it in a way that allows for belief---this is not objectivity. The myth is that we can have an attitude where we don't interpret and see things merely as they are. In reality, though, to see things as they are we have to interpret and interpret rightly. You cannot know God without being in a right relationship to God.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they would properly seek they would have their propositions etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but properly is the key: you can't know something if you won't believe it, and you won't believe it unless you have the right attitudes and precommitments.
Click to expand...


Which reaches again to the question of can we know what is the right attitude or precommitment to have? How does one adjudicate between differing views?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are the one who started with the false religion claims. If you start there, you should have a better position, than "no one has shown me that my position is wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta, you're the one bringing modernist innovations into our discussion, not me. I'm assuming a perfectly ordinary everyday definition and usage of certainty, so the burden is on you to show me that the Bible's usage isn't the ordinary one.
Click to expand...


In everyday language, there are differing levels of certainty depending on the circumstances and the question. I don't see myself deviating from such.



> Much of our disagreement here stems from what I was saying earlier: I don't think that facts can be objective for the simple reason that objectivity is an attitude. Facts don't have attitudes; people have attitudes. To know something, one has to be affected toward it in a way that allows for belief---this is not objectivity. The myth is that we can have an attitude where we don't interpret and see things merely as they are. In reality, though, to see things as they are we have to interpret and interpret rightly. You cannot know God without being in a right relationship to God.



At no point did I deny that we must interpret reality through the lens of a worldview. The question is how we determine which view is correct. Can we know what attitude to take towards something? etc.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Which reaches again to the question of can we know what is the right attitude or precommitment to have? How does one adjudicate between differing views?



These are two separate questions and your answer depends on what you believe.



ChristianTrader said:


> The question is how we determine which view is correct. Can we know what attitude to take towards something? etc.



Sure we can---just not objectively. You always judge from some standpoint---always with precommitments.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which reaches again to the question of can we know what is the right attitude or precommitment to have? How does one adjudicate between differing views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are two separate questions and your answer depends on what you believe.
Click to expand...


Actually if you have a good epistemology, it is only one question. Otherwise, I suppose, one will just fall to pieces whenever someone starts to ask questions or present different views.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is how we determine which view is correct. Can we know what attitude to take towards something? etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we can---just not objectively. You always judge from some standpoint---always with precommitments.
Click to expand...


If precommitments do not ultimately prevent one from knowing what the proper precommitments to have and the proper conclusions to make, then I am not sure how the modern project is at risk. At worst, a little more work needs to be done, than was thought necessary by some folks.

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually if you have a good epistemology, it is only one question. Otherwise, I suppose, one will just fall to pieces whenever someone starts to ask questions or present different views.



Not at all. We don't fall to pieces when other views are presented precisely because we have precommitments. These precommitments are what make any sort of judgment possible.



ChristianTrader said:


> If precommitments do not ultimately prevent one from knowing what the proper precommitments to have and the proper conclusions to make, then I am not sure how the modern project is at risk.



Because the modern project believed that it could have judgment without precommitments---it thought that absolute God-like certainty was possible for humans. It trusted human reason over Divine authority and elevated reason above all else.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you have a good epistemology, it is only one question. Otherwise, I suppose, one will just fall to pieces whenever someone starts to ask questions or present different views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We don't fall to pieces when other views are presented precisely because we have precommitments. These precommitments are what make any sort of judgment possible.
Click to expand...


Your position seems to assume that people never change their minds about important and deeply held beliefs. Since they in fact do, the question is simply why such occurs? I think the cleanest way to view such is that good argumentation causes paradigm shifts to occur. This goes along with the belief that man is by nature, a rational creature.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If precommitments do not ultimately prevent one from knowing what the proper precommitments to have and the proper conclusions to make, then I am not sure how the modern project is at risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the modern project believed that it could have judgment without precommitments---it thought that absolute God-like certainty was possible for humans. It trusted human reason over Divine authority and elevated reason above all else.
Click to expand...


But as you have stated before, we can know what precommitments to have. If we can, then how does the existence of precommitments damage the modern project?

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Your position seems to assume that people never change their minds about important and deeply held beliefs. Since they in fact do, the question is simply why such occurs? I think the cleanest way to view such is that good argumentation causes paradigm shifts to occur. This goes along with the belief that man is by nature, a rational creature.



Generally, not. Man is a rational creature, yes, but all this means is that man acts purposely and with intention---it does not mean that he always changes based on a line of argumentation. This happens sometimes, but in all cases this is by means of appeal to other established beliefs, commitments and motivations. You always judge from a standpoint---even rationality itself can be a pre-rational commitment: "I want to believe the most logical position possible" is a pre-rational position.



ChristianTrader said:


> But as you have stated before, we can know what precommitments to have.



Only if we assume those precommitments. There's no neutral ground---judgment is made possible by precommitments. You're kicking against the goads here. Any sort of admission of any sort of necessity of precommitments for knowledge to be possible undermines the basic premise of the modern project of Descartes and Bacon, namely that it is possible to privilege reason over one's other faculties, do away with all previous commitments, and come out with knowledge. It's a false promise because they have a precommitment to reason---they have a desire to get away from Biblical and Church authority. They want to start from a standpoint of the self as autonomous. If you reject all of this, then you must reject modernism in all its forms. You must reject the notion that you can be like God and have absolute unquestionable certainty.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position seems to assume that people never change their minds about important and deeply held beliefs. Since they in fact do, the question is simply why such occurs? I think the cleanest way to view such is that good argumentation causes paradigm shifts to occur. This goes along with the belief that man is by nature, a rational creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, not. Man is a rational creature, yes, but all this means is that man acts purposely and with intention---it does not mean that he always changes based on a line of argumentation. This happens sometimes, but in all cases this is by means of appeal to other established beliefs, commitments and motivations. You always judge from a standpoint---even rationality itself can be a pre-rational commitment: "I want to believe the most logical position possible" is a pre-rational position.
Click to expand...


Actually generally it is true. People do always change based on a line of argumentation. The thing that people fail to see in a discussion is that a person's web of beliefs can be very complicated and very deep. Depending on where the belief lies in the web, will determine how long it takes to get a clean shot at it.

That everyone judges from a standpoint is only relevant if one cannot know what standpoint to take.

Lastly, the pre-rational commitment of which you wrote above, is the inherent commitment in man. It is simply a part of human nature.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as you have stated before, we can know what precommitments to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we assume those precommitments.
Click to expand...


Now we are getting somewhere. I don't see this as the position of the historic Christian faith. We can know not just assume.



> There's no neutral ground---judgment is made possible by precommitments.



There is neutral ground. This is because we can know what precommitments to have/take. Warfield was not deviating from Historic Christianity when he wrote about right reason. He simply did not execute the project well enough. If there is no neutral ground, then how do we call unbelievers to account for their rebellion?



> You're kicking against the goads here. Any sort of admission of any sort of necessity of precommitments for knowledge to be possible undermines the basic premise of the modern project of Descartes and Bacon, namely that it is possible to privilege reason over one's other faculties, do away with all previous commitments, and come out with knowledge.



It only undermines if we cannot know what precommitments to take. If we can know and we know by proper use of reason, then the modern project is alive and well. You have not put forward anything, that shows such is less than the proper position to hold.



> It's a false promise because they have a precommitment to reason---they have a desire to get away from Biblical and Church authority. They want to start from a standpoint of the self as autonomous. If you reject all of this, then you must reject modernism in all its forms. You must reject the notion that you can be like God and have absolute unquestionable certainty.



First, I do not claim to be like God and know everything in a completely unquestionable certainty. However it does not follow that I cannot have unquestionable certainty about various things.

Next, it does not matter where one starts. One's starting position will either be coherent or not. When it is shown to be incoherent, people will move onto something else. This can be seen in the move from premodern to modern to postmodern. As the various positions were shown to be flawed, people gave them up and moved on to something else.

Next, before one charges me with incoherence, I am not a modernist. I have written about the modern "project" and if it can be salvaged. Modernism failed due to a point that you have made several times: It did not take into account differing worldviews, precommitments etc. Whenever deep seated conflict occurred, all that could happen was that one had to call everyone else an idiot for not seeing the situation as they saw it. That got old and people moved on to postmodernism etc. My position is that yes, there are differing worldviews and precommitments, but we can know which one to follow. Given such, there is no reason to believe that the modern project is dead.

Lastly, you are correct that unbelievers desire to get away from Biblical and Church authority. The problem is that right reason points in that direction. So the unbeliever must refuse to seek and use right reason in order to stay in unbelief. Hence the phrase, "Without Excuse".

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually generally it is true. People do always change based on a line of argumentation. The thing that people fail to see in a discussion is that a person's web of beliefs can be very complicated and very deep. Depending on where the belief lies in the web, will determine how long it takes to get a clean shot at it.



Really? Most of the time my opinions change based on new experiences or on changes of heart and perspective---maybe even empathy. Generally not a direct line of logical argumentation, though.



ChristianTrader said:


> That everyone judges from a standpoint is only relevant if one cannot know what standpoint to take.



From which standpoint does one judge which standpoint to take?



ChristianTrader said:


> Lastly, the pre-rational commitment of which you wrote above, is the inherent commitment in man. It is simply a part of human nature.



But it isn't the only commitment, either. People have pre-rational commitments to self-preservation, concern for family and friends, and (significantly) religious commitment.



ChristianTrader said:


> We can know not just assume.



Why is assumption not knowledge? If I assume something to be true and it is, how is that not knowledge? I act on assumptions all the time which turn out to be true on analysis, but how is the assumption not knowledge?

You have to have precommitments in order to know or scrutinize anything, including those very precommitments. You are never unbiased, never objective, because if you were, you would have no reason to make any sort of judgment at all.



ChristianTrader said:


> If there is no neutral ground, then how do we call unbelievers to account for their rebellion?



By appealing to right reason---which they will reject, short of Divine Grace. You will never see the truth of the Gospel until God changes your heart.



ChristianTrader said:


> It only undermines if we cannot know what precommitments to take. If we can know and we know by proper use of reason, then the modern project is alive and well. You have not put forward anything, that shows such is less than the proper position to hold.



I have done so: what I have shown is that the commitment to reason is itself pre-rational. Classical foundationalism of this kind is self-refuting. To judge anything, one must have a standard and to have a standard is to have a commitment to that standard. You cannot judge between standards without some higher-order standard, which would need yet another standard and so on. It's the age-old infinite regression that shows the nonsense of "knowing that one knows."



ChristianTrader said:


> Lastly, you are correct that unbelievers desire to get away from Biblical and Church authority. The problem is that right reason points in that direction. So the unbeliever must refuse to seek and use right reason in order to stay in unbelief. Hence the phrase, "Without Excuse".



Ok---but what is right reason? Right reason is reason used with the right attitudes and precommitments. It is not "pure" reason and it very clearly involves bias. If we claim that one worldview is true and all others are false, that is hardly an objective or unbiased claim.



ChristianTrader said:


> My position is that yes, there are differing worldviews and precommitments, but we can know which one to follow.



Indeed we can---given the right precommitments. My position is that precommitments (which are distinct from "worldviews") are what make any sort of rational judgment possible.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually generally it is true. People do always change based on a line of argumentation. The thing that people fail to see in a discussion is that a person's web of beliefs can be very complicated and very deep. Depending on where the belief lies in the web, will determine how long it takes to get a clean shot at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Most of the time my opinions change based on new experiences or on changes of heart and perspective---maybe even empathy. Generally not a direct line of logical argumentation, though.
Click to expand...


If new experiences change opinion, then when such is examined, it turns out that one had an internal argument where the current view was unable to maintain coherency in light of the new evidence.

Next, unless you want to see a change of heart or perspective as being random, then it is best to see the change as being in response to the current view not being able to maintain coherency in light of either new or more closely examined evidence.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That everyone judges from a standpoint is only relevant if one cannot know what standpoint to take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From which standpoint does one judge which standpoint to take?
Click to expand...


It is somewhat difficult to answer in a completely abstract manner...but one will have to ask given my view, what are the implications of said view, and if those implications are coherent. For example, one can ask: does my view imply that something comes from nothing, does it imply that one cannot have moral responsibility for ones actions, what does my view imply about God and is such coherent, etc.?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, the pre-rational commitment of which you wrote above, is the inherent commitment in man. It is simply a part of human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't the only commitment, either. People have pre-rational commitments to self-preservation, concern for family and friends, and (significantly) religious commitment.
Click to expand...


If you want to say that there are other pre-rational commitments, then okay. However then one must say that some are more basic than others. For example a person's religious commitment will change when/if it loses coherency for them. Next, people will show concern for family and friends, however how that concern plays out depends on what they believe is the proper way to show love or defend their family and friends. If thinks Libertarianism is the best way for society to be setup, then one will defend such, while if one thinks Conservatism is the best way, then one will defend that. The concern for family and friends didn't change, however what you believe the best way to do such did.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can know not just assume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is assumption not knowledge? If I assume something to be true and it is, how is that not knowledge? I act on assumptions all the time which turn out to be true on analysis, but how is the assumption not knowledge?
Click to expand...


It becomes knowledge after it is put through analysis. Otherwise, one will have to call knowledge, that which turned out to be false after analysis. At the end of the day, the only way that I can see you calling such knowledge, is to believe that whatever you assume will infallibly turn out to be turn after analysis.



> You have to have precommitments in order to know or scrutinize anything, including those very precommitments. You are never unbiased, never objective, because if you were, you would have no reason to make any sort of judgment at all.



It still seems that you somehow believe that precommitments cannot be examined and rejected. If your precommitments commit you to certain beliefs, then they must be rejected because they no longer maintain coherency.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no neutral ground, then how do we call unbelievers to account for their rebellion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By appealing to right reason---which they will reject, short of Divine Grace. You will never see the truth of the Gospel until God changes your heart.
Click to expand...


No doubt, but such is irrelevant for my position. All my position needs is that people respond to reasons and reject positions that no longer maintain coherency. There are a number of ways that unbelief can be expressed. What makes the regenerate different is that they can rest in the gospel position because their rebellion has been broken. Also one must keep in mind that the Holy Spirit's work is not completely separate from good presentation of the gospel and great attacks on various modes of unbelieving thought.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only undermines if we cannot know what precommitments to take. If we can know and we know by proper use of reason, then the modern project is alive and well. You have not put forward anything, that shows such is less than the proper position to hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done so: what I have shown is that the commitment to reason is itself pre-rational. Classical foundationalism of this kind is self-refuting. To judge anything, one must have a standard and to have a standard is to have a commitment to that standard. You cannot judge between standards without some higher-order standard, which would need yet another standard and so on. It's the age-old infinite regression that shows the nonsense of "knowing that one knows."
Click to expand...


But such a position just simply assumes that there are no positions that one can only reject irrationally. The problem with classical foundationalism is the belief that the basic building blocks of a worldview etc are self-evident. But such is person relative. What I believe is self evident will be different from what others belief is self evident due to different upbringings, experiences etc. If one could not adjudicate between different views, then foundationalism would die. How such can be adjudicated by appealing to that which is logically basic vs. just self evidently basic. For example, believing in something coming from nothing is self contradictory when examined.

Given the move that you attempted to make here, I am unsure how you wish to maintain that somehow the created order can only rationally be interpreted in a pro Christian fashion. Yet, the normal method of accomplishing such falls to a basic post modern move.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, you are correct that unbelievers desire to get away from Biblical and Church authority. The problem is that right reason points in that direction. So the unbeliever must refuse to seek and use right reason in order to stay in unbelief. Hence the phrase, "Without Excuse".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok---but what is right reason? Right reason is reason used with the right attitudes and precommitments. It is not "pure" reason and it very clearly involves bias. If we claim that one worldview is true and all others are false, that is hardly an objective or unbiased claim.
Click to expand...


Oh no doubt again. It would only be objective and unbiased, if we can know what are the right attitudes and precommitments to hold. Again pure reason can only be objected to, if one cannot use reason to attack improper attitutes and precommitments.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that yes, there are differing worldviews and precommitments, but we can know which one to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed we can---given the right precommitments. My position is that precommitments (which are distinct from "worldviews") are what make any sort of rational judgment possible.
Click to expand...


Okay by this point, I think I have defended my position on precommitments. How exactly do you think we can "get" to the right precommitments, if you think reason is an insufficient tool for the job?

CT


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> If new experiences change opinion, then when such is examined, it turns out that one had an internal argument where the current view was unable to maintain coherency in light of the new evidence.



Generally not. Such an argument is _ex post facto_.



ChristianTrader said:


> Next, unless you want to see a change of heart or perspective as being random, then it is best to see the change as being in response to the current view not being able to maintain coherency in light of either new or more closely examined evidence.



Why do reasons have to be logical ones? Simply because one has a reason for a change of view that is not the result of a logical line of argumentation in no way entails that said reason is random or irrational.



ChristianTrader said:


> It is somewhat difficult to answer in a completely abstract manner...but one will have to ask given my view, what are the implications of said view, and if those implications are coherent.



Why this standard? Why not an aesthetic standard? From where would you judge between these two standards? The trouble is that you're trying to be a classical foundationalist and it just doesn't work.



ChristianTrader said:


> For example a person's religious commitment will change when/if it loses coherency for them.



On the contrary---people change religious commitments for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes because there's a gun to their head, or because they married into it, or because they found a particular religious community more supportive, or because said community's traditions were found to be more aesthetically pleasing.



ChristianTrader said:


> Next, people will show concern for family and friends, however how that concern plays out depends on what they believe is the proper way to show love or defend their family and friends. If thinks Libertarianism is the best way for society to be setup, then one will defend such, while if one thinks Conservatism is the best way, then one will defend that. The concern for family and friends didn't change, however what you believe the best way to do such did.



Not necessarily---more often than not political-theoretical systems are what change in a person's view. Usually the change comes as a result of action or because of practical application. Belief-formation on all levels is an incredibly messy business---it is rarely clean or logical.



ChristianTrader said:


> It becomes knowledge after it is put through analysis. Otherwise, one will have to call knowledge, that which turned out to be false after analysis. At the end of the day, the only way that I can see you calling such knowledge, is to believe that whatever you assume will infallibly turn out to be turn after analysis.



Oh dear, we're back to Descartes. What exactly constitutes adequate analysis here? There are plenty of assumptions that we have that are unprovable but which I would call knowledge: for example, the belief that the world is more than five minutes old (or that I am more than five minutes old) or the belief that one's faculties are in proper working order.

There are plenty of beliefs that we call knowledge that we don't ordinarily put through this kind of analysis unless we've been reading a good deal of Descartes or Hume. The question to be asked here is why we've made the sceptic king? Why do I have to satisfy a sceptic in order to call it knowledge?



ChristianTrader said:


> It still seems that you somehow believe that precommitments cannot be examined and rejected.



Of course they can---from the perspective of other precommitments. In order to judge you must have a standard and a ground for judging. There's no such thing as God-like certainty, so you have to proceed on _some_ assumptions.



ChristianTrader said:


> All my position needs is that people respond to reasons and reject positions that no longer maintain coherency.



Sure they do---but that's not the only criterion used. Coherency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for someone becoming convinced of a position.



ChristianTrader said:


> But such a position just simply assumes that there are no positions that one can only reject irrationally.



But there aren't any. Reason is used by people---it's never in a vacuum. To be rational is not the same as using reason rightly. Unless you're trying to claim that unbelievers ought to be locked up in institutions for the insane, you believe that the unbeliever is a rational agent. The very fact that you argue with the unbeliever at all is proof that you believe him to have reasons for his unbelief which you are attempting to deconstruct.



ChristianTrader said:


> Given the move that you attempted to make here, I am unsure how you wish to maintain that somehow the created order can only rationally be interpreted in a pro Christian fashion.



I said "rightly" not "rationally." One may be perfectly rational and come to the wrong conclusions.



ChristianTrader said:


> Again pure reason can only be objected to, if one cannot use reason to attack improper attitutes and precommitments.



Indeed reason can---it's just that it always does so from attitudes and precommitments. There's no such thing as "pure" reason. If you have any motive whatsoever for your use of reason, then it's neither pure nor unbiased nor objective.



ChristianTrader said:


> Okay by this point, I think I have defended my position on precommitments. How exactly do you think we can "get" to the right precommitments, if you think reason is an insufficient tool for the job?



Regeneration and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The ability to reason is as fallen as any other part of man---it too has to be renewed before it will function rightly. Christianity is the correct lens through which to view the world---but fallen man hasn't been seeing correctly.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If new experiences change opinion, then when such is examined, it turns out that one had an internal argument where the current view was unable to maintain coherency in light of the new evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally not. Such an argument is _ex post facto_.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. You may be confusing a lack of an explicit line by line argument with no reasoning at all.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, unless you want to see a change of heart or perspective as being random, then it is best to see the change as being in response to the current view not being able to maintain coherency in light of either new or more closely examined evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do reasons have to be logical ones? Simply because one has a reason for a change of view that is not the result of a logical line of argumentation in no way entails that said reason is random or irrational.
Click to expand...

What are you comparing logical to? Illogical? If you wish to compare explicit vs. non explicit, then that is fine.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat difficult to answer in a completely abstract manner...but one will have to ask given my view, what are the implications of said view, and if those implications are coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> Why this standard? Why not an aesthetic standard? From where would you judge between these two standards? The trouble is that you're trying to be a classical foundationalist and it just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I don't think of the two standards as mutually exclusive. On what basis, do you believe in the possibility of some aesthetically pleasing standard with gaping holes in its ability to reflect reality, that someone would wish to hold? Now someone may hold to a worldview that they believe is asthetic before they are confronted or find while it lacks coherency. But such a possibility does not speak against my view. 


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example a person's religious commitment will change when/if it loses coherency for them.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary---people change religious commitments for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes because there's a gun to their head, or because they married into it, or because they found a particular religious community more supportive, or because said community's traditions were found to be more aesthetically pleasing.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that someone's religious commitment has changed when a person has a gun to their head? Why would it not simply be that their actions have changed but their commitments are what they were before the gun? It could simply be that there true commitment of "doing whatever it takes to stay alive" is shown for what it is. What a person professes is not necessarily what they believe.
I don't see any of your examples giving my view (the supremacy of coherency) any problems. 


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, people will show concern for family and friends, however how that concern plays out depends on what they believe is the proper way to show love or defend their family and friends. If thinks Libertarianism is the best way for society to be setup, then one will defend such, while if one thinks Conservatism is the best way, then one will defend that. The concern for family and friends didn't change, however what you believe the best way to do such did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily---more often than not political-theoretical systems are what change in a person's view. Usually the change comes as a result of action or because of practical application. Belief-formation on all levels is an incredibly messy business---it is rarely clean or logical.
Click to expand...

You are right, things are messy in this area. However I do not see how one should come to belief that the changes are somehow irrational or random. Next, how is changes due to practical application somehow against or less rational than changes made for more strictly theoretical reasons. If your theoretical beliefs cannot handle the practical, then what good are they? Lack of coherency is just as harmful as lack of coherency is the strictly theoretical.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It becomes knowledge after it is put through analysis. Otherwise, one will have to call knowledge, that which turned out to be false after analysis. At the end of the day, the only way that I can see you calling such knowledge, is to believe that whatever you assume will infallibly turn out to be turn after analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, we're back to Descartes. What exactly constitutes adequate analysis here? There are plenty of assumptions that we have that are unprovable but which I would call knowledge: for example, the belief that the world is more than five minutes old (or that I am more than five minutes old) or the belief that one's faculties are in proper working order.
Click to expand...

First, universal skepticism is incoherent/self-contradictory. Next, to doubt means to call into question X based on some Y, which you trust. If Y is saying that the world is or may be less than five minutes old, then the next issue is why do you believe it. There is such a thing as irrational doubt just are irrational beliefs in other areas.


> There are plenty of beliefs that we call knowledge that we don't ordinarily put through this kind of analysis unless we've been reading a good deal of Descartes or Hume. The question to be asked here is why we've made the sceptic king? Why do I have to satisfy a sceptic in order to call it knowledge?


I don’t have a problem calling somethings that we call knowledge, simply opinion. Opinion does not mean that such if false or that acting on such an action is necessarily irrational etc.
Next, why wait for the skeptic to confront you, in order to do analysis? Why wait for the skeptic to come along, then do analysis and find out that what you had been doing was simply wrong?


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It still seems that you somehow believe that precommitments cannot be examined and rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can---from the perspective of other precommitments. In order to judge you must have a standard and a ground for judging. There's no such thing as God-like certainty, so you have to proceed on _some_ assumptions.
Click to expand...

All you have done here is dogmatically assert that there is nothing in which it would be irrational to doubt. Certain precommitments are inherently self contradictory. Those we can have certainty that they are in face false.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> All my position needs is that people respond to reasons and reject positions that no longer maintain coherency.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do---but that's not the only criterion used. Coherency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for someone becoming convinced of a position.
Click to expand...

Our discussion is on what makes people give up positions and not about what makes them hold a particular one. Lack of coherency is sufficient to give it up and then go looking for something else.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But such a position just simply assumes that there are no positions that one can only reject irrationally.
> 
> 
> 
> But there aren't any. Reason is used by people---it's never in a vacuum. To be rational is not the same as using reason rightly. Unless you're trying to claim that unbelievers ought to be locked up in institutions for the insane, you believe that the unbeliever is a rational agent. The very fact that you argue with the unbeliever at all is proof that you believe him to have reasons for his unbelief which you are attempting to deconstruct.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those reasons either hold up under analysis or they do not. It is not irrational to hold to reasons that have not been shown to be incoherent.
Remember, the problem with the unbeliever is there lack of seeking.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the move that you attempted to make here, I am unsure how you wish to maintain that somehow the created order can only rationally be interpreted in a pro Christian fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> I said "rightly" not "rationally." One may be perfectly rational and come to the wrong conclusions.
Click to expand...

But remember the Bible calls wrong conclusions in this area to be “Without excuse”. In other words, the Bible calls such irrational.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again pure reason can only be objected to, if one cannot use reason to attack improper attitutes and precommitments.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed reason can---it's just that it always does so from attitudes and precommitments. There's no such thing as "pure" reason. If you have any motive whatsoever for your use of reason, then it's neither pure nor unbiased nor objective.
Click to expand...

If you wish to say that due to attitudes and precommitments, there is no “pure” reason, then okay. But even given such impure reason, there is no basis to believe that such cannot transcend the precommiments and get to truth and certainty.


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay by this point, I think I have defended my position on precommitments. How exactly do you think we can "get" to the right precommitments, if you think reason is an insufficient tool for the job?
> 
> 
> 
> Regeneration and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The ability to reason is as fallen as any other part of man---it too has to be renewed before it will function rightly. Christianity is the correct lens through which to view the world---but fallen man hasn't been seeing correctly.
Click to expand...

According to Romans 1, Christianity is the objectively true view. To reject such entails that one behave irrationally. Therefore the phrase without excuse is used. The various worldviews of unbelief can be shown to be such. People can keep running away as their different worldviews explode. But even in unbelief, the unbeliever still responds to and rejects incoherency.


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> You may be confusing a lack of an explicit line by line argument with no reasoning at all.



When I hear "reasoning" I assume that you mean a logical argument. If you didn't get there by this means then you weren't reasoning---to reason is to come up with logical arguments.



ChristianTrader said:


> What are you comparing logical to? Illogical?



Non-logical. Just because one didn't use an argument does not make one's reasons irrational or illogical.



ChristianTrader said:


> I don't think of the two standards as mutually exclusive. On what basis, do you believe in the possibility of some aesthetically pleasing standard with gaping holes in its ability to reflect reality, that someone would wish to hold? Now someone may hold to a worldview that they believe is asthetic before they are confronted or find while it lacks coherency. But such a possibility does not speak against my view.



I'm not arguing that such a standard is contradictory to yours, but that yours is not a given. A position may be perfectly coherent and also aesthetically unpleasing and so I reject it on that ground.

It's not a supreme standard.



ChristianTrader said:


> I don't see any of your examples giving my view (the supremacy of coherency) any problems.



Of course they do---your argument is that changes in view are always the result of someone finding one view non-coherent. All I am maintaining is that this is manifestly incongruent with the way people actually behave. Their views may change on a completely pragmatic basis or a completely aesthetic one.



ChristianTrader said:


> However I do not see how one should come to belief that the changes are somehow irrational or random.



I have never said irrational. I said not based on reason (as in a logical argument).



ChristianTrader said:


> Lack of coherency is just as harmful as lack of coherency is the strictly theoretical.



Part of the trouble here is that coherency merely has to do with the internal relations of a system of belief---it has nothing whatsoever to do with its relation to reality or its practicality.



ChristianTrader said:


> First, universal skepticism is incoherent/self-contradictory. Next, to doubt means to call into question X based on some Y, which you trust. If Y is saying that the world is or may be less than five minutes old, then the next issue is why do you believe it. There is such a thing as irrational doubt just are irrational beliefs in other areas.



You still haven't answered the question: what constitutes adequate analysis for me to make a knowledge-claim? And why should I accept that this is a) an adequate standard b) a necessary standard?



ChristianTrader said:


> I don’t have a problem calling somethings that we call knowledge, simply opinion.



In this case you've departed from ordinary usage and therefore from reality.



ChristianTrader said:


> Next, why wait for the skeptic to confront you, in order to do analysis? Why wait for the skeptic to come along, then do analysis and find out that what you had been doing was simply wrong?



You're assuming here that his questions are legitimate, whereas what is at issue here is precisely their legitimacy. How much doubt is reasonable here?



ChristianTrader said:


> All you have done here is dogmatically assert that there is nothing in which it would be irrational to doubt. Certain precommitments are inherently self contradictory.



This simply doesn't make sense. Precommitments can't be contradictory because they aren't propositional in nature. This is a category mistake. They can neither be false nor true.



ChristianTrader said:


> But remember the Bible calls wrong conclusions in this area to be “Without excuse”. In other words, the Bible calls such irrational.



That's not what it says at all. We might also say that by "without excuse" the apostle means, "reasoning wrongly." To reason wrongly (that is, outside of a right relationship with God) is not the same as being irrational.



ChristianTrader said:


> But even given such impure reason, there is no basis to believe that such cannot transcend the precommiments and get to truth and certainty.



You can't transcend that which serves as the basis for any reasoning at all. If there's no such thing as pure reason, then you can't transcend your precommitments. You and I, when reasoning, neither can nor do we cease to be Christians---we reason only as Christians, attempting to bring reason under the Lordship of Christ. Reason is not unique.



ChristianTrader said:


> According to Romans 1, Christianity is the objectively true view.



No, it's the absolutely true view.



ChristianTrader said:


> People can keep running away as their different worldviews explode. But even in unbelief, the unbeliever still responds to and rejects incoherency.



I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work this way. The only way that anyone will admit that they are wrong is by the power of the Spirit. You have to give up the notion that somehow this is objective or that your reason somehow is able to transcend the fact that you are a Christian. Reason is not something out there: it is a faculty for analysis which you have and use differently depending on your precommitments.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Philip said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be confusing a lack of an explicit line by line argument with no reasoning at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear "reasoning" I assume that you mean a logical argument. If you didn't get there by this means then you weren't reasoning---to reason is to come up with logical arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I mean reasoning as you write here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you comparing logical to? Illogical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-logical. Just because one didn't use an argument does not make one's reasons irrational or illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what basis do you assume that no argument was given. Even if you want to say that someone thinks, "This position is less aesthetically pleasing compared to some other position, and I believe the truth will be the most asthetically pleasing, therefore I will reject the first position and accept the second one." the person still reasoned logically. If we simply want to argue about the best criteria, then that is something we can do later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think of the two standards as mutually exclusive. On what basis, do you believe in the possibility of some aesthetically pleasing standard with gaping holes in its ability to reflect reality, that someone would wish to hold? Now someone may hold to a worldview that they believe is asthetic before they are confronted or find while it lacks coherency. But such a possibility does not speak against my view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that such a standard is contradictory to yours, but that yours is not a given. A position may be perfectly coherent and also aesthetically unpleasing and so I reject it on that ground.
> 
> It's not a supreme standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually all you have done here (at best) is argue that coherency is not sufficient, but you said nothing in defense of it not being necessary. If it is necessary, then I am not sure why you would say that it is not supreme. It is perfectly fine to say that one cannot find a flaw in an argument but still not accept it due to various reasons. The issue is if someone would accept incoherency and simply make various other things supreme. It simply doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any of your examples giving my view (the supremacy of coherency) any problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do---your argument is that changes in view are always the result of someone finding one view non-coherent. All I am maintaining is that this is manifestly incongruent with the way people actually behave. Their views may change on a completely pragmatic basis or a completely aesthetic one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, why are you implying that something that fails pragmatic tests should continue to be considered a coherent position?
> 
> Next, unless you wish to make the point that one could somehow say to themselves, that a certain position is aesthetic but incoherent, therefore they will continue to accept it, then I am not sure which point you are attempting to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> However I do not see how one should come to belief that the changes are somehow irrational or random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never said irrational. I said not based on reason (as in a logical argument).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But your counters cannot be considered to be not based on reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of coherency is just as harmful as lack of coherency is the strictly theoretical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of the trouble here is that coherency merely has to do with the internal relations of a system of belief---it has nothing whatsoever to do with its relation to reality or its practicality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think this? Where do the items in ones system of belief originate? How one sees reality is how. A worldview will be asked various questions from various different directions. Either it will be able to produce a coherent response or it will not. If it cannot then something will have to change in the system of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, universal skepticism is incoherent/self-contradictory. Next, to doubt means to call into question X based on some Y, which you trust. If Y is saying that the world is or may be less than five minutes old, then the next issue is why do you believe it. There is such a thing as irrational doubt just are irrational beliefs in other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered the question: what constitutes adequate analysis for me to make a knowledge-claim? And why should I accept that this is a) an adequate standard b) a necessary standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get there, but I have to know where you are coming from to get there. Is there such a thing as irrational doubt? If not, then I don't think you will buy into any standard of analysis. If the answer is yes, then we are on the same team, attempting to come to a consensus on the proper standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have a problem calling somethings that we call knowledge, simply opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case you've departed from ordinary usage and therefore from reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philosophy is about should's as well as is. Ordinary usage is cultural dependent. If we can transcend such, then we have the ability to critique such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, why wait for the skeptic to confront you, in order to do analysis? Why wait for the skeptic to come along, then do analysis and find out that what you had been doing was simply wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming here that his questions are legitimate, whereas what is at issue here is precisely their legitimacy. How much doubt is reasonable here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't one have to do analysis in order to determine what is legit and what is not? I am with you in pushing for a transcultural standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have done here is dogmatically assert that there is nothing in which it would be irrational to doubt. Certain precommitments are inherently self contradictory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This simply doesn't make sense. Precommitments can't be contradictory because they aren't propositional in nature. This is a category mistake. They can neither be false nor true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they have implications (and if you want to say they have no implications, then they are meaningless, and we should simply ignore them). As far as I can tell, you are using the term precommitments as something along the lines of instinct or urges. They are either proper or not. If they are not, then they need to be replaced by what is proper. If one can have a mixture of proper precommitments and improper precommitments, then I am not sure why you are hung up on calling some precommitments contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But remember the Bible calls wrong conclusions in this area to be “Without excuse”. In other words, the Bible calls such irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says at all. We might also say that by "without excuse" the apostle means, "reasoning wrongly." To reason wrongly (that is, outside of a right relationship with God) is not the same as being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um but if it is not irrational, then why is it without excuse? If one can be rational and still be without excuse, then you have just reduced "without excuse" to simply being wrong. But being wrong is a much weaker claim than without excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even given such impure reason, there is no basis to believe that such cannot transcend the precommiments and get to truth and certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't transcend that which serves as the basis for any reasoning at all. If there's no such thing as pure reason, then you can't transcend your precommitments. You and I, when reasoning, neither can nor do we cease to be Christians---we reason only as Christians, attempting to bring reason under the Lordship of Christ. Reason is not unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, just like people reason as Muslims, atheists, etc. But many also reject those precommitments and go on to other ones. You have not at any point, put forth an understanding of how such occurs. If one cannot transcend precommitments then basis for change must be random. Even if you want to say that one changes their mind based on aesthetics, one is still using something to transcend and judge one's precommitments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Romans 1, Christianity is the objectively true view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's the absolutely true view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On judgment day, will unbelievers be able to say to God that they rationally rejected natural revelation, natural theology, Christianity etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can keep running away as their different worldviews explode. But even in unbelief, the unbeliever still responds to and rejects incoherency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work this way. The only way that anyone will admit that they are wrong is by the power of the Spirit. You have to give up the notion that somehow this is objective or that your reason somehow is able to transcend the fact that you are a Christian. Reason is not something out there: it is a faculty for analysis which you have and use differently depending on your precommitments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People admit they are wrong all the time. They move from Mormonism to Atheism, to Islam to etc. The reason that they do so, is that they see flaws in their view that they cannot repair. People even reject a form Christianity because they don't have a coherent version of it.
> 
> My point is that Christianity has to answer certain questions just like every other view. It can while nothing else can.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

ChristianTrader said:


> On what basis do you assume that no argument was given. Even if you want to say that someone thinks, "This position is less aesthetically pleasing compared to some other position, and I believe the truth will be the most asthetically pleasing, therefore I will reject the first position and accept the second one." the person still reasoned logically.



On the basis that this isn't the thought that goes through anyone's head. The thought is, "I find this better than my old position." One sees what is in front of one's faculties and finds oneself believing one way or another. This is why I am a direct realist, not a rationalist.



ChristianTrader said:


> Actually all you have done here (at best) is argue that coherency is not sufficient, but you said nothing in defense of it not being necessary. If it is necessary, then I am not sure why you would say that it is not supreme. It is perfectly fine to say that one cannot find a flaw in an argument but still not accept it due to various reasons. The issue is if someone would accept incoherency and simply make various other things supreme. It simply doesn't work that way.



Of course it can: one can make multiple moves here. Maybe one believes that the inconsistency is only seeming. I know Lutherans who will play the paradox card and Catholics who will play the mystery card. It's not supreme unless it's the measure of all things---coherency is only one of many criteria used to evaluate, and it's not even the chief one. My chief criteria is whether it corresponds to reality.



ChristianTrader said:


> Um, why are you implying that something that fails pragmatic tests should continue to be considered a coherent position?



Because coherence is merely about logical tightness and flow. A position may be perfectly coherent and also perfectly ridiculous (Leibniz' _Monadology_, for instance).



ChristianTrader said:


> Next, unless you wish to make the point that one could somehow say to themselves, that a certain position is aesthetic but incoherent, therefore they will continue to accept it, then I am not sure which point you are attempting to make.



That's not what they would say at all: the point would be that coherence isn't a consideration to begin with.



ChristianTrader said:


> Why do you think this?



Because this is the accepted definition of coherence.



ChristianTrader said:


> Where do the items in ones system of belief originate? How one sees reality is how.



And how one sees reality depends on one's pre-rational commitments.



ChristianTrader said:


> A worldview will be asked various questions from various different directions. Either it will be able to produce a coherent response or it will not. If it cannot then something will have to change in the system of belief.



Worldviews don't answer questions: people answer questions. And just because one cannot think of an answer to a question is no reason to reject one's worldview. Coherence, correspondence, and the other characteristics of belief-formation have nothing to do, necessarily, with the ability to answer every question, even to one's own satisfaction. There are plenty of questions in theology to which I don't have the answer and I make knowledge-claims to the effect that Christianity is true.



ChristianTrader said:


> Is there such a thing as irrational doubt?



Absolutely. When you start questioning the existence of your hands, you've probably descended into irrationality. One can even be perfectly logical and be irrational. Plenty of mathematicians go insane.



ChristianTrader said:


> Philosophy is about should's as well as is. Ordinary usage is cultural dependent. If we can transcend such, then we have the ability to critique such.



I'm curious as to how you hope to transcend language. Can you hope to accomplish this while still using it?



ChristianTrader said:


> Wouldn't one have to do analysis in order to determine what is legit and what is not?



Indeed---and for such, one would have to have a preconceived standard.



ChristianTrader said:


> But they have implications (and if you want to say they have no implications, then they are meaningless, and we should simply ignore them). As far as I can tell, you are using the term precommitments as something along the lines of instinct or urges. They are either proper or not. If they are not, then they need to be replaced by what is proper. If one can have a mixture of proper precommitments and improper precommitments, then I am not sure why you are hung up on calling some precommitments contradictory.



They don't have implications, at least not in the logical sense. They aren't urges, no: they are precisely commitments. I'm using this in the ordinary sense of the word with all that this entails, not some philosophic sense.

Proper and improper here would be categories of morality or propriety---they are pre-judgments: prejudices without which no judgment or analysis can take place. Of course they entail certain judgments---but only in tandem with other precommitments, never in isolation.



ChristianTrader said:


> Um but if it is not irrational, then why is it without excuse? If one can be rational and still be without excuse, then you have just reduced "without excuse" to simply being wrong. But being wrong is a much weaker claim than without excuse.



Because they ought to have known. The evidence is sufficient to condemn. The unbeliever is not being irrational: he is acting in perfect accordance with his own reasons, desires, and will. To be irrational is to be insane.



ChristianTrader said:


> But many also reject those precommitments and go on to other ones. You have not at any point, put forth an understanding of how such occurs.



Generally based on other precommitments, I would say---deeper ones.



ChristianTrader said:


> If one cannot transcend precommitments then basis for change must be random.



How does this follow?



ChristianTrader said:


> On judgment day, will unbelievers be able to say to God that they rationally rejected natural revelation, natural theology, Christianity etc.?



Absolutely---and that's why they have no excuse. They know full well what they are doing.



ChristianTrader said:


> People admit they are wrong all the time. They move from Mormonism to Atheism, to Islam to etc. The reason that they do so, is that they see flaws in their view that they cannot repair. People even reject a form Christianity because they don't have a coherent version of it.



Not always. You're assuming that everyone views the world in the same rationalist enlightenment view that you and I do and this just isn't so. I'm tempted by your view precisely because to me ideas are real and logical analysis is the way I generally come to believe things. But suppose someone came up to you who saw the world not in terms of truth and falsehood but saw things in terms of good and bad taste based on completely aesthetic judgments. What would you say?



ChristianTrader said:


> My point is that Christianity has to answer certain questions just like every other view.



I don't think Christianity is going to answer every question---I think that questioning is part of the Christian life. Faith isn't the absence of doubt but the transcendence of doubt. It means the ability not to have all of the answers while still trusting that God is good and that God is God even if you don't see it all. Remember that we don't yet see face-to-face.


----------



## Afterthought

Just a couple of more thoughts. I was still wondering about this:


Afterthought said:


> As a side issue, it appears that on more than one occasion in this thread, appeal has been made to the ultimate misery of man without accepting Christianity. Is such an appeal allowed to be made in arguing for the truth of a position?


That is, can we make merely subjective appeals when arguing for the truth of a position? Or have I misunderstood something?


I was also wondering how we can tell the difference between facts and theories. Oftentimes in the sciences, I note that what once was a theory or hypothesis becomes a fact of observation later. What is the dividing line between them? This seems relevant to this thread because of the statements that say there are absolute facts, though they are arrived at through some subjective method, and also because theories becoming facts seems like an instance of creating facts.



Finally, to continue a conversation, though I don't know if Rev. Winzer will see this (maybe someone else can answer):



Afterthought said:


> Ohh, so if I understand right, the unbeliever could infuse meaning into a statement, but that meaning could not be shared with another; even if two infused something with the same meaning, their background assumptions are so individualized that they still would not be able to share it?


I had understood the critique of an individual infusing meaning into something immanent to mean that the individual would then be alone because unable to share that meaning with another. What if someone said that was the point: they wanted to be alone?



armourbearer said:


> Again, the point is that his transcendence has destroyed the reality that our personhood is bound to the immanent.


I've been wondering about this. Firstly, I think I am understanding this statement as meaning that a person must be transcendent to infuse meaning into something. This contradicts the reality of his or her immanence. If so then, secondly, why must one be transcendent to infuse meaning into something immanent? It seems like there should be an obvious answer to that question, but I'm having trouble seeing it.


----------



## Philip

Afterthought said:


> That is, can we make merely subjective appeals when arguing for the truth of a position?



Absolutely we can. We don't have to just make logical arguments. Plenty of people have come to faith because they were "surprised by Joy" or found in the Gospel that which they had been vainly seeking elsewhere.



Afterthought said:


> I was also wondering how we can tell the difference between facts and theories. Oftentimes in the sciences, I note that what once was a theory or hypothesis becomes a fact of observation later. What is the dividing line between them? This seems relevant to this thread because of the statements that say there are absolute facts, though they are arrived at through some subjective method, and also because theories becoming facts seems like an instance of creating facts.



To some degree what you are doing is confirming theories, at least in science. We don't create facts---we do discover them. The point that I was making about subjectivity is that discovery involves certain processes, certain methods, which involve personal commitments and are accepted on that basis. The acquisition of knowledge is a set of skills---this is why we have teachers and schools (or why we should): to train the young in learning to use their faculties properly.


----------



## Afterthought

Philip said:


> Absolutely we can. We don't have to just make logical arguments. Plenty of people have come to faith because they were "surprised by Joy" or found in the Gospel that which they had been vainly seeking elsewhere.


I wonder though, are these merely subjective arguments dependent on logical arguments? Not all merely subjective arguments work (but I suppose not all logical ones do either), for example, one might be an Arminian because they like it better. So then, perhaps the subjective arguments are dependent on logic; they are valid in this case because of Christianity's claim (and many people in general, it seems) that one of the ends of men is happiness, and so we can use mere subjective appeals in arguing for Christianity's truth? The other way to test subjective arguments I guess would be to argue, "Well, you only think you like Arminianism better; you'll actually like Calvinism better."



Philip said:


> To some degree what you are doing is confirming theories, at least in science. We don't create facts---we do discover them. The point that I was making about subjectivity is that discovery involves certain processes, certain methods, which involve personal commitments and are accepted on that basis. The acquisition of knowledge is a set of skills---this is why we have teachers and schools (or why we should): to train the young in learning to use their faculties properly.


I see. That makes some sense, with respect to the point you were making. I guess that the theories and background knowledge that facts (scientific and otherwise) are relative to would be seen as methods and processes? Because if the theories and background knowledge were not, then it seems facts would be created by a change in the theories and background knowledge they are relative to. Unless I missed something?


----------



## Philip

Afterthought said:


> I wonder though, are these merely subjective arguments dependent on logical arguments? Not all merely subjective arguments work (but I suppose not all logical ones do either), for example, one might be an Arminian because they like it better. So then, perhaps the subjective arguments are dependent on logic; they are valid in this case because of Christianity's claim (and many people in general, it seems) that one of the ends of men is happiness, and so we can use mere subjective appeals in arguing for Christianity's truth? The other way to test subjective arguments I guess would be to argue, "Well, you only think you like Arminianism better; you'll actually like Calvinism better."



I think the angle you would go for in this case, though, is to show what the subjective implications of Arminianism and Calvinism are with regard to assurance and experience of God's grace. The subjective aspects of salvation are highly relevant to the issue (and are good reasons to be a Calvinist).



Afterthought said:


> I guess that the theories and background knowledge that facts (scientific and otherwise) are relative to would be seen as methods and processes? Because if the theories and background knowledge were not, then it seems facts would be created by a change in the theories and background knowledge they are relative to. Unless I missed something?



Exactly: facts are not made _true_ by one's methods of inquiry, but they are only discovered in that context by means of some method.


----------

