Duns will holler at you guys later. Fark, keep your eyes open and your mind scopin'. Dave, please guard the bourbon for me. :-)
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
dunsscot
JoinedPosts by dunsscot
-
12
Dave and Fark
by dunsscot induns will holler at you guys later.
fark, keep your eyes open and your mind scopin'.
dave, please guard the bourbon for me.
-
-
dunsscot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear six,
:for instance?
+=plus where I'm from. What is "quus"? My dictionary has no listing for it.:
That is the point Tipler makes. + = plus 'where you are from.' You think that + means "plus" because you have been taught that it "means" plus. But the + sign is purely arbitrary. It only possesses the value that a certain community imputes to it. IT does not inherently mean "plus."
As for quus, it is (as far as I know) a generic term that philosophers use like schmedentity. Kripke's point in using "quus" as he discusses Wittgenstein is that a certain skeptic could come along and insist + signifies "plus" and you could not disprove his contention without being arbitrary or dogmatic.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as "self-evident" truths are concerned, do you mean such truths as 'These truths we hold to be self-evident . . ."?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
six: nah, not really. Just meant...you know, apodictic.
Duns: That is a good one, six. :-) That was like . . . bodacious!
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
Duns: Even simple problems like 2 + 2 = 4 are unprovable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------six: btw, why do you keep saying this? Take two of something. Take two more. How many will you have?
Some things really are that simple. Self evident.:
First, please do not confuse the addition of two "numbers" (2 + 2) with the addition of two and two physical items. One activity does not necessarily prove the validity of the other. Your senses could either deceive you or you could make an epistemic mistake when adding two sticks and two sticks. In other words, adding two items and two items works for most everyday activities. But this procedure does not establish the apodictic nature of mathematical problems like 2 + 2 that involve concepts.
What is more, both Saul Kripke and Frank Tipler have shown there are an awful lot of assumptions at play when we work math problems. For example, we might ask what the + sign means in 2 + 2. How do we know it really means "plus"? What if it really designates "quus"? Then 2 + 2 would not = 4.
Tipler picks up on this difficulty and notes that we basically use algorithms to solve math problems, employing what someone taught us as children. Proving the truthfulness of 2 + 2 = 4 ultimately results in circularity or dogma. The + sign seems completely arbitrary. It is a human convention.
As far as "self-evident" truths are concerned, do you mean such truths as 'These truths we hold to be self-evident . . ."?
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
:But with god, you never see him, he never talks to you, he never does anything. There is much scientific evidence for the existence of say, my cat, but there is szilch for god. Why? because he is non-corporeal. And he does not communicate with peoples.:
Your comments show that we all filter "facts" through certain presuppositions. You seem to possess certain positivistic preunderstandings that govern your epistemic starting-point. I have my own preapprehensions through which I apprehend phenomena. Duns thinks we must both admit that we are not neutral adjudicators of what is and is not "real."
But let me just say that the Christian who affirms the notion of a sensus divinitatis thinks that he or she does see God when he/she beholds God's creation (Romans 1:20). I know the designer argument is highly debatable and I think it will never be considered compelling by a universal set of finite agents. I am only trying to show you how the Christian looks at matters. Moreover, science cannot provide irrefutable evidence that your cat exist. It may at the most show that your cat probably obtains.
:SO you see why alot of people don not beleive in god, because if he exists, refuses to show himself.:
According to Scripture, God cannot show himself. Merold Westphal calls our inability to behold the unmediated vision of God, ontological inadequacy. We are dust and God is Wholly Other.
:How can you have an 'intimate' relationship with a person when that person 1) never shows himself 2) never talks to you, and when you talk to him you can never do it to his face, you have to send him something and hope he reads it or hears it, because he never sends you any verification that he has received it 3) in fact, you have never seen this person and noone else has either. You have just been told since you were little that this is a good person.:
While I do not believe that God visibly shows "himself," I think we can infer God's existence from his "effects" (Hebrews 3:4). As Paul Davies notes, I choose to believe that the world with its marvelous order did not just come about by happenstance. It seems reasonable to me that someone created the universe. You are of course free to believe that the cosmos has no need of THAT hypothesis, sire.
Personally, I think that God does participate in divine speech-acts. He communicates with humans on sundry levels. Can I prove that God has communed with me in an illocutionary and perlocutionary sense? No I do not think that I am able to perform that feat. That is why I just share my experiences with others and let them make their own decisions.
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
Lewis: To believe that God--at least this God--exists is to believe that you as a person now stand in the presence of God as a Person . . . You are no longer faced with an argument which demands your assent, but with a Person who demands your confidence":
Six: I know these aren't your words Dens, but I am curious as to what this hack Lewis is talking about. Which God, and in what way does this Person demand the believers confidence? Also, on a more personal note, if you believe this Person demands your confidence, what do you suppose this Persons' motivation is?:
In a broad sense, Lewis is undoubtedly referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More narrowly, he is probably speaking of the triune God, which includes the "eternal" second Person of the Trinity. I take issue with Lewis here, but we share a common ground in that we believe the God of the patriarchs is Summus Deus.
Lewis contends that the Creator God of the patriarchs demands our confidence in the same way that a husband or wife demands our confidence and exclusive devotion. If a marital relationship is going to succeed, there must be a very high level of confidence that is shared between the two human parties. Similarly, it is imperative that the creature who worships YHWH manifest confidence in this peerless God, if the relationship is going to function smoothly.
Lastly, I think God's motivation for "demanding confidence" is multifaceted. But I am sure that his motivation is benevolent and a product of geunine divine concern and interest in the other. Isa 48:17-18 tells me that God wants his creatures to benefit themselves. They can only act with profit to themselves, the spokesman of YHWH declares, if they heed the commands of God and maintain a vital relationship with El Shaddai.
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
:Hey Dunscott! Can you do Immanentism next?:
I'll write it down on my philosophical "to do' list. :->
Dan
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
:Duns,
I think Seeker has made a very good point. Faith is the answer for you, not logic.I have a very good friend who has a PhD in Organizational Communications. Late in life, he went back to college to get a Master's in Theology. I asked him a question related to your dialogue. He said that was a matter of faith. I did not ask any more questions, and he did not offer any more elaboration. I consider him to be one of my best friends.:
Your friend sounds like an extreme fideist, larc. I simply do not buy that type of Tertullianist or Kierkegaardian way of processing religious information. I favor John Locke's view instead. He suggests that reason is the arbiter of faith: it protects us from spiritual abuses and forces religion to be "honest." A belief that is irrational should be rejected, says Locke. I agree, but I may temper Locke's view somewhat by noting that the word "proof" as it stands is ambiguous. Secondly, I think there are different types of proof for disparate fields. One does not present an ethical or theological proof in the same way that he/she produces a scientific or analytic "proof." We must also consider certain epistemic barriers that may attend such attempts to prove God's existence. The distinction between ontological and logical truth comes into play here.
Furthermore, if Lewis and Plantinga are correct, a Christian really has no need to prove anything about his belief in God. He or she might just as well "prove" the existence of the mate that he/she loves and adores.
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Seeker,
:I have always supported the right of a person to believe what they wish, and I'm respectful of a Christian's belief. It is only when they stray into evidentialism that I tend to speak up, for the evidence they tend to find hardly proves their point. It is faith they should embrace.:
With reference to comments and thought patterns much like your own, certain Christian thinkers have made the following observations. I somewhat agree with them:
"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith" (GK Chesterton).
"In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved" (Chesterton).
The more I study varying epistemologies and examine how those who formulate such theories of knowledge have tried to apodictically ground epistemic warrant, I am convinced that we cannot prove anything apodictically except maybe that we exist in some shape or form. Maybe Augustine's si fallor, sum or Descartes' cogiot ergo sum are problematic, as Hume indicates. In other words, each proposition, at its base, seems unprovable.
When we begin to engage in self-referentiality or start to use metalanguage to make sense of a particular base language, Kurt Godel and John Barrow assure us that we cannot avoid circularity or dogmatism. They have particularly spoke about the ineluctable conundrums associated with mathematics. Math is ultimately unprovable in an apodictic sense. Even simple problems like 2 + 2 = 4 are unprovable. So it seems that religion and reason or any type of evidentialism are in the same boat ultimately.
Duns the Scot
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
dunsscot
Arguments from natural theology are at times needed when Christians defend the faith against atheological attacks. Yet, for the Christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for Christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness. No, Christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that God provides to those who love him. It is no wonder CS Lewis wrote about the obstinacy of belief.
Lewis and Alvin C. Plantinga have taken on evidentialism and shown that she is found wanting when judged by her own standard. Both thinkers show that Christians are in a relationship with the Most High that no one can cause them to easily doubt. Christians are thus rightly obstinate in their theistic beliefs, even in the face of supposed contrary evidence that could deceive if possible, even the elect.
Just as a man does not doubt the existence of his wife or his children, just as a wife does not question the existence of the mate that she lives with, eats dinner with, and has loving relations with--so the Christian, being in an intimate relationship with Almighty God, does not doubt God's existence (even when the way gets rough). We thus conclude with these sagacious words from Lewis:
"To believe that God--at least this God--exists is to believe that you as a person now stand in the presence of God as a Person . . . You are no longer faced with an argument which demands your assent, but with a Person who demands your confidence" (OB, 26).
Duns the Scot
-
37
Concerning Supercalifragilisticexpealideosis
by messenger ini used a bigger word than dunscot......
-
-
dunsscot
:Seeker,
I can see from what angle you are coming from as I have had a few digs at Duns.In being honest I hope that Duns realises I am only having a bit of fun....I have nothing whatsoever against Duns or his intellectual abilities; I can even handle his big words..........let's face it.....he gives us a laugh and extra bits of information too.
So Duns.....I hope you read this....:
Ana,
Don't worry. It takes a lot to hurt my feelings. I know you guys like to joke, and I take many of the comments here in stride. Duns likes to make people laugh as well. He is not only subtle, but he also tries to be witty. Therefore, Duns sometimes prescinds from this particular media of communication and puts everything in phenomenological perspective as he notes how things stand in their Gegenstand relation.
Duns