this thread is prompted by:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30757909#post30757909
First, note that the ministers testimony changes HIS life.
and that the scientists testimony is false because THEIR lives are not changed or enlightened to HIM.*
This is essentially an epistemological claim that his experience is the only reliability or justification scheme available for either type of knowledge: religious or secular. curious i would have expected coherence with and justification by the Bible in the first instance and by reality in the second.
Second, since i don't have access to his private experience of either group, i can have no reliable knowledge, neither can anyone else. For it all revolves around his experiences confirming the rightness of the knowledge. Now you might be able to extend this to other people who have the exact same experiences as he does, but wouldn't he have to somehow certify these "enlightened experiencers" to be sure that then judged ministers and scientists in exactly the same way?
Lastly, at heart this is a really odd claim for a Christian to try to make. For it puts his experience at the center of everything, determining truth, determining enlightment etc. i would really expect some reference to God, not a sinful human being. Besides who was here to do this essential task before he was born or will be here after he dies? can we only have reliable information while he is here among us?
but the big question, other than this radical individualism is why pick experience as this great rule?
notes:
* wouldn't it be better if the minister's life was changed and this enlightenment evident to him?
or
that the scientists knowledge changed his experience rather than not enlightening them?
this confusion between who does what under what conditions is inconsistent and confusing as stated.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30757909#post30757909
I stared at this paragraph for several minutes, just digesting and looking at it carefully. what an interesting epistemological claim....I have questioned ministers and science professors. The ministers hold up the Bible, and I see how GOD has worked in my life. The secular scientists hold up their diplomas and their research but I see no life changing evidence that they are enlightened with all thier learning. Therefore I must conclude that what I have is real and what they have is opinion....
First, note that the ministers testimony changes HIS life.
and that the scientists testimony is false because THEIR lives are not changed or enlightened to HIM.*
This is essentially an epistemological claim that his experience is the only reliability or justification scheme available for either type of knowledge: religious or secular. curious i would have expected coherence with and justification by the Bible in the first instance and by reality in the second.
Second, since i don't have access to his private experience of either group, i can have no reliable knowledge, neither can anyone else. For it all revolves around his experiences confirming the rightness of the knowledge. Now you might be able to extend this to other people who have the exact same experiences as he does, but wouldn't he have to somehow certify these "enlightened experiencers" to be sure that then judged ministers and scientists in exactly the same way?
Lastly, at heart this is a really odd claim for a Christian to try to make. For it puts his experience at the center of everything, determining truth, determining enlightment etc. i would really expect some reference to God, not a sinful human being. Besides who was here to do this essential task before he was born or will be here after he dies? can we only have reliable information while he is here among us?
but the big question, other than this radical individualism is why pick experience as this great rule?
notes:
* wouldn't it be better if the minister's life was changed and this enlightenment evident to him?
or
that the scientists knowledge changed his experience rather than not enlightening them?
this confusion between who does what under what conditions is inconsistent and confusing as stated.