Posted on 04/06/2005 11:36:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Freepers began a most engaging dialogue at the end of another thread! It is not only a fascinating subject - it also presents us with an opportunity to clarify ourselves and hopefully help us appreciate our differences and thus relieve some of the contention on various threads (most especially science and philosophy threads).
The subject is knowledge - which, as it turns out, means different things to different people. Moreover, we each have our own style of classifying “knowledge” – and valuing the certainty of that “knowledge”. Those differences account for much of the differences in our views on all kinds of topics – and the contentiousness which may derive from them.
Below are examples. First is PatrickHenry’s offering of his classification and valuation followed by mine – so that the correspondents here can see the difference. Below mine is js1138’s offering.
Please review these and let us know how you classify and value “knowledge”! We’d appreciate very much your following the same format so it’ll be easier for us to make comparisons and understand differences.
PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
Alamo-Girl’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
js1138’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties
2. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
4. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
5. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
Separate List for theological knowledge:
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
2. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet. I am aware that this has limitations, but what choices do I have? I learn the limitations and live with them.
3. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning. Same limitations apply, except that they are more frequent and serious.
4. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true. The trueness may be unassailable, but the conclusions of axiomatic reasoning are only as true as the axioms, which may be arbitrary. Outside of pure logic and pure mathematics, axiomatic reasoning drops quickly in my estimation of usefulness. People who argue politics and religion from a "rational" perspective are low on my list of useful sources.
5. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week. I am not aware of any scientific theory that I understand which has failed in a major way. Some theories, of course, make sharper predictions than others. Eclipses are pretty certain.
6. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ... Oddly enough, "facts" are less certain in my view than theories.
7. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
No, on second thought, don't follow up. You're the kind of enraged, scientifically-illiterate, philosopher-wannabe we have three dozen of on FR. I just re-read your follow-up to Ich, and I have no wish to get down in the gutter with you.
I love the kidnapped scientist metaphor! It does a great job in capturing our inability to be know-it-alls. LOLOL!
And I agree, too, that language (and communication) are the driving force of our body of knowledge. Sadly though, it cuts both ways - language can clarify or obfuscate and for so many things, there just are no words (e.g. pain/pleasure).
Thank you so much for your post!
Just wanted to say I read that book too, and Fred is right: C.S. Lewis must be taken very seriously. Lewis derails the metaphysical naturalist train unlike anyone I've ever seen!
There I was digging into IE roots like a hog in truffles and I got a great idea--buy an IE dictionary. A good one. Great anticipation. It arrived. Began comparing Webster's etymologies. Not a lot of commonality. Some, but not wonderful. But, it reinforced an earlier axiom--trust no one.
To the person who has received a Spiritual revelation - e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - there is no question because the Spirit Himself reveals it as part of the person's being. It is not like someone else speaking but rather an involuntary speaking within, a compelling not of self-will. (Matt 16, John 1)
Likewise, when one who is indwelled by the Spirit reads Scriptures, the Words come alive within. To someone who does not have yet have this indwelling (or has not yet learned to defer to the Spirit when reading Scripture) - the Bible would be text on paper, a manuscript, interesting literature, etc.
Most important in receiving Spiritual revelations is that God is self-consistent. Each revelation will agree with all of His previous revelations to the believer. Thus if a person believes he has received a revelation which is inconsistent, then there is something desperately wrong. (Cayce, Yates, etc.)
A clear indication that a "revelation" someone claims to have received is not from God is when it disagrees with Scriptures which have already been Spiritually revealed to the hearer as Truth. This is called the Berean test (Acts 17).
Jesus' "a bad tree cannot yield good fruit" (Matt 7) standard is the first test. IOW, if a person claims to have Spiritual discernment and wants to share it with a believer, then the believer should look at the fruits of the speaker’s life (Gal 5) to decide whether or not to listen. “False prophets” would fail this test. Even so, after hearing what is said, many believers will still apply the Berean test.
Personally, I choose not to filter God’s Word through the eyes of mortal men and thus eschew all doctrines and traditions and put everything to the good/bad tree and Berean tests. But that’s just me.
Some are more comfortable relying on the insight of a single spiritual mentor or a lineage of mentors. These have placed their trust in a person or institution between themselves and the Word (Jesus). Certainly, as long as those in between and the ones trusting never lose sight of Christ, there is not so much risked.
However, some will invariably end up worshipping the messenger instead. These are the kind who followed Jim Jones and Marshal Applewhite and David Koresh to their end. And some are led astray into bizarre and destructive behavior.
For that reason, I strongly recommend for all believers to stay focused on Jesus and faithfully apply the good/bad tree test and the Berean test to every spiritual speaker, even the ones they already trust.
My two cents…
Which reminds me of the classic:
3 is greater than 2
(except for unusually large values of 2)
Check your Jacobians, folks. . .
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: You Frech should check your Jacobins, too!
That doesn't answer the question at all. It only says that you have chosen a particular side. Others have also had unquestionable spiritual experiences that disagree with yours. Those who've never had such experiences just see two or more people ablsolutely convinced of their beliefs to the point of being willing to die for them.
I think the problem is often a little more complex than that. One problem is that the empirical sciences are UNABLE by their nature to choose between competing revelatory claims; coupling that with the superior ability of the sciences to predict everyday phenomena, and the supposition that all religions necessarily grew out of a desire to explain the cosmos, and--bingo--you have the temptation to sweep "all these religious fancies" aside.
And of course, you have other issues such as wishful thinking (on both religious and non-religious sides), intellectual pride, etc.
And if the supernaturalists are right, then you have the factors of real revelation and real deception thrown in--as well as the possibility of all kinds of misunderstandings. (Just try telling one of your elementary school age children to pass a message on to one of their siblings, and you'll see that it really can depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is...)
And all this before the possibility of stories being mangled by history, translation problems, etc.
Full Disclosure: St. Paul came out and said that "now we see as through a glass, darkly." Why do I only find these threads after all the fun, furor and uproar has died down? :-(
My post was directed only to Spiritual (Holy Spirit, i.e. Christian) revelation. And yes indeed, I have clearly taken a "side".
Useless unless you're Michael Schiavo's lawyer. . .
"She doesn't [seem] to think, therefore SHE is not...therefore we should starve what is left."
Sure sounds like the quote from one of the Richard Feynman books...
Something like
I wonder why
I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder
I wonder why I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder
Or words to that effect...
Cheers!
Yah sure you betcha.
Avogadro's number = number of units in a mole.
1 mole of water ~ about 18 grams of water.
1 liter of water ~ 1000 cc of water ~ 1000 g of water (temperature and density...)
there are more or less 55 moles of water in a liter.
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Forgive any math mistakes, it's past my bedtime :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.