Poll - How Do We Know?

How Do We Know?

  • The Bible - God's revelation to man

    Votes: 40 48.2%
  • Science - the scientific method

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Experience - "seeing is believing"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Reason - the application of the laws of logic

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • All of the above

    Votes: 35 42.2%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Other - I'll explain below

    Votes: 4 4.8%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony,

If you feel I have mischaracterized something please elaborate. I quoted two statements about words right next to each other above. If you want to explain to me how you resolve the two then I'm all eyes. Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction. :)

Perhaps it appears that way to you. But two people making two different statements at two different times in two different posts are hardly grounds for a real contradiction. I think you should first try to understand them one at a time first. And then if you still can't resolve it, explain what the contradiction appears to be. Frankly, I don't see any contradiction, so you'll have to spell it out since this is your claim.

You also previously could not answer how a person becomes aware of a thing in guarding against a question I had about learning how to use words in sentences, etc.
Now your impugning my motives when I answered questions as best I could - and also being honest about what I can answer with confidence and those things which I'm uncertain about. Do you think being open about limits to what I can say is a sign of being disingenuous? I don't recall your giving a solution.

It seems in one conversation you want to devalue words, grammar, and syntax but in another you want to insist they are used in a very precise way to convey meaning.
Well what it seems to your is different than what I mean. I've never devalued words, grammar, or syntax. That's another mis characterization.

I understand that your not "getting" what I'm saying. But these kinds of uncharitable and unwarranted generalizations against Scripturalism are not going to help you understand it. I think you are arguing from a gut level and not really trying to understand exactly what I've been saying. You think things don't "resonate" with Scripture, or things "seem" to be this way or that. These are not strong arguments. You need to be more specific and support your gut reaction with real substance.
 
And this coming from a man who has failed miserably trying to demonstrate that sensation has any cognitive role. I'm trying to figure out what you possibly can have left? The parable of the fig tree provided you no support. Pharisaic weather forecasting was of no use to you either and you failed to even identify Jesus' valid use of ad hominem. And doubting Thomas was a rebuke to your sensate Thomistic epistemology and you didn't even grasp that. Consequently, it's hard for me to conclude that Rich has chosen the right side in this debate.

:cheers:

Once again you try to turn your remarks on me, rather than acknowledge your mistaken statement about Rich and proceed upon a better footing.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it appears that way to you. But two people making two different statements at two different times in two different posts are hardly grounds for a real contradiction. I think you should first try to understand them one at a time first. And then if you still can't resolve it, explain what the contradiction appears to be. Frankly, I don't see any contradiction, so you'll have to spell it out since this is your claim.
I'm honestly trying to understand your position. You write things that Sean says Amen to and vice versa. I assume you both represent your positions correctly. If you disagree with Sean on the utility of letters, words, and syntax then this will resolve the tension. I'm honestly confused about how words are of real import to Scripturalists because I've gotten indication to the contrary.

Now your impugning my motives when I answered questions as best I could - and also being honest about what I can answer with confidence and those things which I'm uncertain about. Do you think being open about limits to what I can say is a sign of being disingenuous? I don't recall your giving a solution.
You may interpret it as impugning your motives or you may interpret it as asking for a consistent explanation. On the one hand you don't seem convinced that our awareness from words and sentences precedes our learning of a thing (nor is even necessary) but you're still very insistent on the word "knowledge" meaning "justified true belief."

Well what it seems to your is different than what I mean. I've never devalued words, grammar, or syntax. That's another mis characterization.
A confusion perhaps but not a purposeful mischaracterization. I gain nothing by creating a strawman. If I'm going to criticize a position I want it to be on the basis of what it believes. I'm trying to get to a better understanding.

I understand that your not "getting" what I'm saying. But these kinds of uncharitable and unwarranted generalizations against Scripturalism are not going to help you understand it. I think you are arguing from a gut level and not really trying to understand exactly what I've been saying. You think things don't "resonate" with Scripture, or things "seem" to be this way or that. These are not strong arguments. You need to be more specific and support your gut reaction with real substance.
Well, I believe I'm not being uncharitable but I am challenging you to account for your insistence on the use of terms. You want to repeatedly refer to people as "believing in the force" and that any use of knowledge below your accepted bar is unacceptable. I'm trying to have you provide a rational account for how words themselves are meaningful because I took that up in another thread and was left with the impression from both you and Sean that words themselves are not meaningful but arbitrary. Yet in this thread (and others) you are very insistent on the use of words. You can get emotional about this challenge or you can try to defend it and resolve the problem.

I dare say that many others are having the same problem understanding it (we could take a poll if you like) and it's not all based on gut reactions but trying to resolve your system of thought and your belief about words, awareness, and learning with your insistence on the use of specific words.

If you don't want to answer honest questions then that's fine but I reject the charge that I've deliberately mischaracterized because I have not seen any arguments produced that demonstrate how you find words meaningful enough to insist upon them.
 
You may interpret it as impugning your motives or you may interpret it as asking for a consistent explanation. On the one hand you don't seem convinced that our awareness from words and sentences precedes our learning of a thing (nor is even necessary) but you're still very insistent on the word "knowledge" meaning "justified true belief."
That's not correct. I insist that when I am speaking of epistemology and knowledge, I mean "justified true belief" and that this definition is completely consistent with the system of thought given to us in Scripture. Repeatedly I have said that this is not how the word is used in every case and that these other cases are also valid. What I am trying to avoid is ambiguity and equivocation.

Well, I believe I'm not being uncharitable but I am challenging you to account for your insistence on the use of terms. You want to repeatedly refer to people as "believing in the force" and that any use of knowledge below your accepted bar is unacceptable.
I've tried to show that insisting that knowledge is something unintelligible leads to problems with any claims to rational thought. It is insistence of others I object to because lowing the bar leads to incoherence and poor reasoning. It make the Christian worldview a fideist philosophy by discounting role of reason and logic. It sets faith against reason in a way that makes Christianity ultimately irrational (and dare I say - paradoxical).


I'm trying to have you provide a rational account for how words themselves are meaningful because I took that up in another thread and was left with the impression from both you and Sean that words themselves are not meaningful but arbitrary.
I'm sorry you got that false impression. But you started that thread by asking who the letter A can have meaning. I tried to explain to you that in and of itself a symbol does not have meaning unless you can define it. If I simply blurt out "elecampane piquant short perhaps return" it would not covey anything intelligible. You could look up the definitions of the words, but still not have a clue regarding what I was saying because random words don't really say anything by themselves. Words only work when they are part of an intelligible thought.

Yet in this thread (and others) you are very insistent on the use of words. You can get emotional about this challenge or you can try to defend it and resolve the problem.
I'm not getting emotional.

If you don't want to answer honest questions ....
You didn't ask any questions in your post.
....then that's fine but I reject the charge that I've deliberately mischaracterized because I have not seen any arguments produced that demonstrate how you find words meaningful enough to insist upon them.
I'm sorry you don't understand me. Maybe that's my fault, maybe it's yours. But if you don't understand me, then you should be more careful about making assertions regarding what I saying or what Scripturalism implies. It's better to ask if I mean X than to assert that I mean X. That way I won't get so "emotional". :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top