Facts aren't Facts

[Philip]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

CT

 

[MW]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

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

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.

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

CT

 

[Philip]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

CT

 

[Philip]

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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]

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]

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

Because it's our own fault.

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

Then why are you following a pre-modern religion?

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.

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.

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]

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

Because it's our own fault.

We are without excuse because Adam fell?

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

Then why are you following a pre-modern religion?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

CT

 

[Philip]

We are without excuse because Adam fell?

"In Adam's fall we sinned all."

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.

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

Yes, but one thing at a time.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

We are without excuse because Adam fell?

"In Adam's fall we sinned all."

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, but one thing at a time.

No doubt

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.

The questions were partially rhetorical.

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.

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

bylogos: Genesis and Ancient Cosmology

 

[Philip]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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]

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.

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.

Actually resolving does not entail getting everyone to agree.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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".

Actually resolving does not entail getting everyone to agree.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

CT

 

[Philip]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.