Blog?

[Bulldog]

Here is the outline from which I will be working. It is subject to revision, but the general approach should follow what is set down here.

Topic #1: The Laws of Logic

1) The Law of Identity (Proof text: Ex. 3:14)
2) The Law of Contradiction (Proof text: 1 Co. 1:18)
3) The Law of Excluded Middle (Proof text: Mt. 12:30)

Topic #2: A Defense of Rationality

1) Man is rational

a) The rationality of man is intellectually necessary

i) Advantages of rational thought (The successes it causes; virtue of rationality)
ii) Problems of irrational thought (The failures it causes; impossibility of irrationality)
iii) Language requires rationality (True must mean true and not false)

b) The rationality of man is morally necessary

i) Advantages of rational morality (Honesty, trustworthiness, obedience)
ii) Problems of irrational morality (Lies, theft, disobedience)
iii) Obedience requires rationality (We must know right [true] from wrong [false])

2) God is rational

a) The rationality of God is intellectually necessary

i) God is truth. Truth is rational.

-- Perfect rationality is necessarily true ("True" itself means "rationally true")
-- Irrationality can never be true (If true can mean false, it cannot be true)

b) The rationality of God is morally necessary

i) The Law (The Law cannot mean "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" at the same time)
ii) The Gospel (We cannot be "justified by faith" and "not justified by faith" at the same time)

Topic #3: The Biblical Concept of Truth

1) God the Father is Truth (Proof text: Dt. 32:4)
2) God the Son is Truth (Proof text: Jn. 14:6)
3) God the Holy Spirit is Truth (Proof text: Jn. 16:13)

4) What is true?

a) Rationalism (pure logic) is not true

i) It begins with a false premise (human understanding)
ii) It fails to justify itself

b) Empiricism is not true

i) The senses are inherently flawed
ii) It is impossible to prove valid inference from sensation
iii) Temporality is relatively irrelevant

-- Our battle is not with flesh and blood (Proof text: Eph. 6:12)
-- The dominion command is a divine command given before the decree to work the earth (Proof text: Gen. 1:28, cf. 3:17)

iv) The failure of empirical apologetics
v) A refutation of some common "biblical arguments" for sensation

-- Mt. 23:42 (Clearly a parable)
-- etc. (Anyone want to suggest some others?)

c) The Bible is true

i) Sola Scriptura

-- All content of Scripture is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, the sole rule of faith and practice
-- What is knowable is that which is expressly set down in the Scriptures or that which can be validly deduced from them

ii) "Don't you have to read your Bible?"

-- This question doesn't really need an answer because we assume the Bible is true, we don't prove it
-- We have already shown sensation never gives us truth
-- Nevertheless, we have an answer (Section on the doctrine of illumination)

iii) "What is the Bible?" (Textual Criticisms)

-- The Bible is the books of the Old (39) and New (27) Testaments
-- Textual Criticism fails to address the argument

.. The Word is preserved by the Holy Spirit (Section on doctrine of the canon)
.. The meaning of the Word is unchanged

>> The Bible is not the Bible because it is a written document, it is the Bible because it is the Word of God

.. "I am still skeptical"

>> The Holy Spirit assures us of the authenticity of the canon (Section on the doctrine of assurance)

.. Regeneration and faith are required to believe the Bible (Proof texts: Jn. 6:63, 1 Co. 2:14)

Topic #4: Christian Epistemology

1) Epistemology primer

a) The criteria of knowledge

i) Belief
ii) Justification (of belief)
iii) Truth

b) Therefore, rationalism produces no knowledge
c) Therefore, empiricism produces no knowledge
d) Therefore, only the Bible produces knowledge

2) Christianity starts with the Bible

a) The Bible is all that is true because it is the only justification for knowledge
b) Belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is utterly essential

3) Problems with compromising

a) Compromising the Bible compromises Christianity
b) Nothing can be added or taken away from the Bible without dire consequences
c) We should not think we can obtain knowledge outside of the Bible

4) The place of sensation and science

a) We do denounce sensation or science, only put them in their place. Insofar as they are useful, they are beneficial. They allow for practical judgments. The command to subdue the earth assumes their use. But they never yield truth, only opinion. They are subjective.

b) All extra-biblical thinking and activity is a matter of human judgment. These judgments have a rightful place in our interactions. Much of the Bible assumes their use. We should always use them in subjection to the Scriptures.

Conclusion: Therfore, the Bible alone is true, and is the sole basis for all knowledge

If anyone has anything they want to add to that, something that they would like to see come up for consideration, comments, or questions, just let me know.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

My mind is salivating.

 

[Erinwilcox]

We're off and running.

http://nicholsonjon.wordpress.com

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Looks like you're off to a good start, Jon! I read it and I'm waiting for more!

 

[PapaLandShark]

Wow...see what happens when I wander off into the wilderness for months? Well done Jon. ( And the rest of you bloggers ).

Bookmarked and reading...

If anyone wants to take a look at the ramblings of a scattered mind ( for now ):

http://www.livejournal.com/users/llelanian/

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19904576

 

[StAnselm]

Thanks for bringing up the prayer carnival.

Well, for some reason my submission wasn't included. Didn't you receive it?

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

No I didn't. I added it to the carnival though. The Christian Carnival has a tradition of being added to after the fact as well. I'm sorry I missed this earlier!

 

[StAnselm]

Well, thanks for adding it!

 

[jbarcher]

Jon, if you get your own domain, contact me and I'll do the hosting for you. But I'll be adding a link to you on my blog list. (Sign on to technorati.com)

Hopefully I can better understand presupping as you hold it. I don't know how much you value it, but I am glad (that's not the exact word for it, but I can't think of one) that your degree of codification is high enough to state it like that.

And just for everyone else (who I am a stranger to), I have very grave reservations about Jon's philosophy and methods, but nevertheless, we have some interesting discussion. Disagreement is bearable if it is mature.

Oh, and Jon, it would intrigue me very much if you were to post on topics like your epistemology vs externalist foundationalism, or vs some kind of virtue epistemology; what you think is lacking, what some of the best critiques are, etc. Also, if you could discuss what it means to have an explicitly Christian method in, say, psychological experiments.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Also, if you could discuss what it means to have an explicitly Christian method in, say, psychological experiments.

Now that could become quite the hairy discussion. Psychologists seek out ways to help people deal with their misery, as do theologians. The answer to this problem can be different, though, when you ask each one what the cause of and solution to the misery may be.

 

[Jon_]

Oh, and Jon, it would intrigue me very much if you were to post on topics like your epistemology vs externalist foundationalism, or vs some kind of virtue epistemology; what you think is lacking, what some of the best critiques are, etc. Also, if you could discuss what it means to have an explicitly Christian method in, say, psychological experiments.

Externalism is flawed right at the very outset because of its empirical presuppositions. My criticisms of empiricism will be many and detailed in the series that I am working on.

My opinion on secular psychology is that no Christian should consider it anything more than unjustified speculation. As Doug pointed out, one of the primary purposes of psychology is to understand how and why the mind operates, i.e. to arrive at truth concerning the functions of the mind. In my series, I intended to argue that only that which is explicitly stated or validly deduced from Scripture can be justified as true (this would be neither externalism nor internalism, but a dogmatism, if you will).

My entire argument is largely centered around the issue of justification, which is what externalism seeks to address. My position is also somewhat foundationalist, as this is what the Scriptures teach. I originally started out as a coherentist, and I tried to construct an entire Christian worldview that would be defensible, á la Ayn Rand (although she wasn't Christian). You will see this evident in my first post in our thread. However, my philosophy has since changed rather dramatically, which is why I have not yet posted my next argument. I'm not sure how to proceed, as I cannot defend my positive arguments, anymore. I think they're wrong.

If you ever want to chat, just drop me an email or ding me on MSN. I love talking about philosophy with other Christians.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ksen]

Now that could become quite the hairy discussion. Psychologists seek out ways to help people deal with their misery, as do theologians. The answer to this problem can be different, though, when you ask each one what the cause of and solution to the misery may be.

Psychologists help you deal with your guilt, while theologians are trying to help you deal with your sin.

 

[jbarcher]

Well Jon, if you've shifted away from coherentism then your position will seem--especially to you--radically different. I will agree to cease the debate because of that; your time is valuable and is better spent towards defending a position that you actually believe in. Ironically, I was going to dedicate a good portion to objections to coherentism and continue it afterwards. But I would appreciate your summary of the debate, and reasons for your changing position. It'd be a good reminder that we're all human.

The first problem I see (more of an existential objection) with saying that psych is unjustified speculation is the problem of success. If it is unjustified speculation, how do you explain successful treatments? discovery of true things about people? From a purely conceptual standpoint of course.

It sounds like Scripture and God are your 'foundations' [axioms]. For Descartes, the axioms needed to be induitable, otherwise the foundations would not be completely secure. While I'd be interested in what you could deduce from Scripture (especially how you justify beliefs about the external world), I'd be even more justified if you agreed with Descartes on axioms and gave some arguments to accept Scripture and belief in God as axiomatic.

Part of seeing how much you can justify beliefs about the external world runs into that fun bit about needing to assume so much before you can get to the Bible, linguistics and all that ancient stuff. In my view, every good epistemology should give an account for knowing language and meaning, otherwise one should not speak. I'd argue that knowing language is based on inductive and abductive reasoning, and if one cannot justify induction and abduction, one has no medium to express oneself. How do you know what I am saying, if induction and abduction are removed?

 

[Jon_]

Well Jon, if you've shifted away from coherentism then your position will seem--especially to you--radically different. I will agree to cease the debate because of that; your time is valuable and is better spent towards defending a position that you actually believe in. Ironically, I was going to dedicate a good portion to objections to coherentism and continue it afterwards. But I would appreciate your summary of the debate, and reasons for your changing position. It'd be a good reminder that we're all human.

Sure, I'll post a summary of the revocation of my arguments.

The first problem I see (more of an existential objection) with saying that psych is unjustified speculation is the problem of success. If it is unjustified speculation, how do you explain successful treatments? discovery of true things about people? From a purely conceptual standpoint of course.

The practical consequences mean nothing. For instance, if I were to work out a mathmatical problem incorrectly, but still got the right answer, I would have the problem marked incorrect because I did not answer the problem correctly. The principle is the same when it comes to any empirical discipline.

The argument, "It works, therefore it is true," is obviously fallacious. "So far, everytime I turned the key in my car, my car has started; therefore, everytime I turn the key, my car will start," is a clear case of affirming the consequent. Further examination will show that all cases of administering medication, to use a psychology example, are all cases of post hoc reasoning, and thus, fallacious. Just because your fever goes down when you take ibuprofen does not make it necessarily true that ibuprofen lessens the effects of fever.

It sounds like Scripture and God are your 'foundations' [axioms]. For Descartes, the axioms needed to be induitable, otherwise the foundations would not be completely secure.

Nothing can be more completely secure than the word of God.

While I'd be interested in what you could deduce from Scripture (especially how you justify beliefs about the external world), I'd be even more justified if you agreed with Descartes on axioms and gave some arguments to accept Scripture and belief in God as axiomatic.

You don't prove axioms. Axioms are that by which you prove everything else. I'd like to see someone prove the Law of Identity or even give an argument for its acceptance. Any argument to prove the law of identity begs the question because it assumes logic in order to prove logic. To even question the Law of Identity is to beg the question.

For that same reason, you cannot prove the Bible. You assume it is true and prove everything else according to it. If someone objects that this is unconvincing then that is too bad. My scriptural obligation is not to convince anyone of anything, only to proclaim the truth. The Holy Spirit convinces those he will according to the will of the Father.

Part of seeing how much you can justify beliefs about the external world runs into that fun bit about needing to assume so much before you can get to the Bible, linguistics and all that ancient stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

In my view, every good epistemology should give an account for knowing language and meaning, otherwise one should not speak.

Language is a gift of God and a product of man's rational mind, which is the image of God.

I would be very interested in what you consider a good epistemology according to the criterion you have just given, too. No secular epistemology has even come close to meeting your standard.

I'd argue that knowing language is based on inductive and abductive reasoning, and if one cannot justify induction and abduction, one has no medium to express oneself.

I'd say this is contradictory. Induction/abduction (it's the same thing, man) can never arrive at knowledge (and thus, can never arrive at langauge that can be known). Induction says, "The last 1000 swans I have observed where white, therefore, all swans are white." This is fallacious. Moreover, no new knowledge is gained from this. You must first know your terms, "white, swan," and a number system (in order to count), before you can hope to even make an observation. And when you do make that observation, you cannot validly infer anything by it.

We should also ask why there is this innate need to be able to classify natural occurances as "true." I question why it is necessary to say we know that an object will always fall to the ground. Why is it not sufficient to say that we all believe gravity exists? Why is it not sufficient to say we judge that gravity exists? It is obvious we can never prove it. It is obvious that sensation can never arrive at truth. Why do we keep trying to enforce our own demands for knowledge when God has already provided all that we need to know in his Scriptures?

How do you know what I am saying, if induction and abduction are removed?

I don't know. I believe. I cannot prove that you've said anything. But I can tell you that I believe you have said something and I can even tell you what I believe that is, but I have no justification to say I know it or that it is true. The problem is, of course, justification.

This is why presupposing the verity of Scripture is the only way out of the justification quagmire.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jbarcher]

Sure, I'll post a summary of the revocation of my arguments.
I'm interested in your reasons for changing. Rational and irrational forces.

The practical consequences mean nothing. For instance, if I were to work out a mathmatical problem incorrectly, but still got the right answer, I would have the problem marked incorrect because I did not answer the problem correctly. The principle is the same when it comes to any empirical discipline.

The argument, "It works, therefore it is true," is obviously fallacious. "So far, everytime I turned the key in my car, my car has started; therefore, everytime I turn the key, my car will start," is a clear case of affirming the consequent. Further examination will show that all cases of administering medication, to use a psychology example, are all cases of post hoc reasoning, and thus, fallacious. Just because your fever goes down when you take ibuprofen does not make it necessarily true that ibuprofen lessens the effects of fever.
I guess we need to take up induction again, since you seem to categorically dismiss all inductive reasoning. I don't think you can maintain this at all, but that is what later discussion is for.

Nothing can be more completely secure than the word of God.
How is it that you know this?

You don't prove axioms. Axioms are that by which you prove everything else. I'd like to see someone prove the Law of Identity or even give an argument for its acceptance. Any argument to prove the law of identity begs the question because it assumes logic in order to prove logic. To even question the Law of Identity is to beg the question.

For that same reason, you cannot prove the Bible. You assume it is true and prove everything else according to it. If someone objects that this is unconvincing then that is too bad. My scriptural obligation is not to convince anyone of anything, only to proclaim the truth. The Holy Spirit convinces those he will according to the will of the Father.
You may be mistaken about axioms, however. A stock example is Euclid's parallel postulate, which, so I hear, has been disproven by geometrists. I would agree that laws of logic are axiomatic, however, I would do so on the basis that they cannot be denied. Induitability works also. However, the force of this would not be formally logical, it would be intuitive. Of course, one could be an utter skeptic and deny a priori knowledge, but then discussing with them would make things rather impossible.

I'm curious how you would use the Bible to prove other things. What things are you talking about? Things about the natural world (i.e. trees exist)?

I'm not sure what you mean here.
Justify translations; ancient history...

Language is a gift of God and a product of man's rational mind, which is the image of God.
I'm sure the capacity for speech is part of human nature. What about the actual language?

I would be very interested in what you consider a good epistemology according to the criterion you have just given, too. No secular epistemology has even come close to meeting your standard.
Can't say I know enough about them. I'd be interested in one that tries to refute skepticism, since I think that's one of the most fundamental epistemic problems. To be honest I suspect I won't decide for a few years--it's something that's absolutely fascinating to me but unfortunately is not of high priority.

[...] This is fallacious. Moreover, no new knowledge is gained from this. [...]

We should also ask why there is this innate need to be able to classify natural occurances as "true." I question why it is necessary to say we know that an object will always fall to the ground. Why is it not sufficient to say that we all believe gravity exists? Why is it not sufficient to say we judge that gravity exists? It is obvious we can never prove it. It is obvious that sensation can never arrive at truth. Why do we keep trying to enforce our own demands for knowledge when God has already provided all that we need to know in his Scriptures?
Yes and no. Induction doesn't quite claim to arrive at new knowledge. If a sample was perfectly representative, though, the inductive inference would be new knowledge. Otherwise, it may serve as an aid (here is where I distinguish between induction and abduction). Inference to the best explanation may provide us with theories to base predictions on; these predictions may prove helpful to understand phenomena. And no, correct predictions are not taken as deductive proof, only a piece of evidence towards a theory.

It's not necessary in a logical sense to say that we know something. I think you are driving at something else, because even if one conceded that it isn't necessary to say "we know", it would not affect anything. Otherwise, we're back to your seeming categorical rejection of induction.

I don't know. I believe. I cannot prove that you've said anything. But I can tell you that I believe you have said something and I can even tell you what I believe that is, but I have no justification to say I know it or that it is true. The problem is, of course, justification.

This is why presupposing the verity of Scripture is the only way out of the justification quagmire.
I think you are arbitrarily using skeptical standards here, and I'm not sure how your [apparently unjustified] use of Scripture as an axiom would stand under the same standards.

I also think I'm not illustrating the problems I see enough. You seem to be still thinking largely like a coherentist, because in some places (unjustified taking of Scripture as an axiom; massive questions of pre-Scriptural understanding, exegesis, linguistics, etc, are begged) you seem to be vulnerable to the input objection.

I'll go read your blog over the holidays (hey, last class is Dec 5th!) and see if I can hit what I want to.

 

[Jon_]

I guess we need to take up induction again, since you seem to categorically dismiss all inductive reasoning. I don't think you can maintain this at all, but that is what later discussion is for.

You've read Hume, Russell, and Popper, right? I wonder in what sense you think I can't maintain this. Induction cannot ever arrive at a valid conclusion (unless it is closed, of course, at which point it is deductive, since the premises are definite). Also, I'm not sure we ever left off the issue of induction. I don't think we need to "take it up again," I think the burden of proof remains on you to show that induction is valid. I have already shown it affirms the consequent and is formally fallacious, so I'm not sure what else I can offer than that. If you insist on using a fallacious method of reasoning, be my guest, just don't expect me to answer any arguments you derive from it.

How is it that you know this?

It is assumed. Scripture is the axiom. That is, the presupposition. Your presupposition is empiricism. You reject mine, I reject yours, so the whole thing becomes an ad hominem affair. I would think that since I have shown inference from sensation to be fallacious, the only thing left to discuss would be my worldview. But that's just how I see it.

You may be mistaken about axioms, however. A stock example is Euclid's parallel postulate, which, so I hear, has been disproven by geometrists.

Euclid's fifth postulate was shown to be inconsistent with the other four axioms. If you read the Wikipedia article on Euclidean geometry, you'll see that there are other inconsistencies within the system. Today, Euclidean geometry is no longer axiomatized, but is a proven theorem via analytic geometry. The illustration given was only meant as that: an illustration. Another would be Kant's Categorical Imperatives.

In any case, allow me to give the precise definition I am using, which is the third given from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, which says: "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate."

To say say that an axiom is or can be disproven is inaccurate. By definition, axioms are neither provable nor disprovable. They are starting points. They are assumptions.

Now, an axiom might be shown to be inconsistent (especially with other axioms), but this is merely grounds for dismissing the axiom, not a conclusion that the axiom is wrong. You cannot disprove a belief. If I tell you I believe that the moon is cheese, you can show that it is not, but you can never disprove that I believe it is cheese. (Again, this is an illustration.)

I hope that clarifies my meaning.

I would agree that laws of logic are axiomatic, however, I would do so on the basis that they cannot be denied.

Yes, indeed. Scripture, as the axiom of Christianity, cannot be consistently denied. (The laws of logic are frequently denied, but these divergeances are, by definition, wrong. The same goes with Scripture.)

I'm curious how you would use the Bible to prove other things. What things are you talking about? Things about the natural world (i.e. trees exist)?

I don't prove anything about the natural world. Propositions concerning nature are unprovable, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I can have an opinion about natural things. (Oh, and I have an uncommon view about the meaning of the term "exists" when used as a logical predicate.)

Instead, I am talking about constructing biblical theories, that is, a biblical worldview, which should serve as the basis for all judgments. For instance, a theory of economics may be derived from Scripture, but the particulars of its application must be based on judgments.

Justify translations; ancient history...

Justify in what sense? I'm sorry, but I still don't know what you mean. If you mean how translation is possible, then see below. As far as ancient history goes, I don't view any history apart from that contained in the Bible as necessarily true. (I don't deny it; I simply maintain it is not provable.)

I'm sure the capacity for speech is part of human nature. What about the actual language?

Words are nothing more than a bunch of symbols for various meanings. The English word (symbol) "Yes" has the same meaning as the various symbols, "oui," "ja," "sí," "hai," etc. The meaning is definite (an affirmative answer); and that is what God has given us by fruit of rationality. The symbols are varied in order to confuse us (Babel), but the meaning is univocal.

Yes and no. Induction doesn't quite claim to arrive at new knowledge.

Indeed. I should have specified abduction in this sense.

If a sample was perfectly representative, though, the inductive inference would be new knowledge.

If by "perfect representative," you mean a complete induction, then I would still have to disagree. (Naturally, I disagree with any instance of incomplete induction.)

A complete induction is really an instance of deductive reasoning. In deduction, you never arrive at new truth, you only unpackage it from your premises. The information, the truth, was already contained in the premises, it simply required the application of inference in order for it to be known. In this case, no "new" knowledge is being discovered. Instead, you are only gaining knowledge that already existed.

But this might just be a matter of semantics. My point would be that the knowledge is inherent in the premises. Or, in other words, it is latent in the premises, and patent in the inference.

Otherwise, it may serve as an aid (here is where I distinguish between induction and abduction). Inference to the best explanation may provide us with theories to base predictions on; these predictions may prove helpful to understand phenomena. And no, correct predictions are not taken as deductive proof, only a piece of evidence towards a theory.

I cannot disagree here. Induction does provide us with useful beliefs. And it does provide for some practical outcomes, I think.

It's not necessary in a logical sense to say that we know something. I think you are driving at something else, because even if one conceded that it isn't necessary to say "we know", it would not affect anything. Otherwise, we're back to your seeming categorical rejection of induction.

I think what we have here is simply a disagreement over the degree of justification that is necessary to meet the criterion of justification, so that one might know something. I maintain that only an infallible source can be a sufficient justification for knowledge. In other words, I maintain that we must begin with an assumption of truth, and then proceed from there.

I don't think this is any different from the majority of philosophers that have come and gone. I have just never seen it phrased so directly. It kind of kills the "mystique" of philosophy (which isn't mystical at all).

I think you are arbitrarily using skeptical standards here,

Well, all standards are arbitrary. I would like to know by which "standard" you reject my standards.

and I'm not sure how your [apparently unjustified] use of Scripture as an axiom would stand under the same standards.

I'm not sure what standards could possibly "justify" the use of any given axiom.

I also think I'm not illustrating the problems I see enough. You seem to be still thinking largely like a coherentist, because in some places (unjustified taking of Scripture as an axiom;

What constitutes the justification of an axiom?

And I am no longer a coherentist. I would call my theory of justification, Biblical Foundationalism. The basic belief of my foundationalism is, the Bible alone is the inerrant and infallible word of God. As my basic belief, it is self-justifying, self-evident, and both unprovable, and undisprovable. It is my axiom. This belief serves as my theory of justification.

massive questions of pre-Scriptural understanding,

Do you mean, "How do we understand anything before we read Scripture?" If that's so, then the answer is that what we "know" before we know Scripture is nothing at all. Of course, my standard of justification for knowledge is much more rigid than yours. I require deductive reasoning as justification. I do not deny that we can and do make all kinds of judgments and opinions concerning the world, though. No one can deny that. I only maintain that these things are not necessarily true. They cannot be justified consistently. Moreover, the basis upon which they would seek justification is faulty.

exegesis,

You mean Scripture proofs? Well, obviously you're not going to get the whole argument in just this little dialogue. The whole reason I started my blog was to address this issue. That project is probably going to be many months. So, I hope you'll forgive the abbreviated nature of my position here, but it really cannot be helped much.

linguistics, etc, are begged) you seem to be vulnerable to the input objection.

Well, what else did you expect? I need much more space and much more time to develop my arguments. I wouldn't expect you to accept my views without a fully developed system. Moreover, I'm up against your most basic presupposition here. It'll take a lot more than just this thread to change your mind, if at all.

In terms of vulnerability, that depends on your presuppositions. Obviously, since you are an empiricist, you will seek to attack my epistemology from empirical grounds. You will want to know how I can know anything at all since I deny empiricism but I have to "read" the Bible. I have answers to this objection in many forms, and answers to many other counter-arguments. But the persuasiveness of these valid proofs is at least dubious to someone whose fundamental belief is that sensation can yield truth.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I'm interested in your reasons for changing. Rational and irrational forces.

Irrational forces, eh?

I don't think I'll have much to say in the thread, actually. Instead, I'll point readers to my blog for my present position.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jbarcher]

I think the burden of proof remains on you to show that induction is valid.
Hm. I'm looking at a paper published by (apparently) a specialist on probability; he made a response to Plantinga's attack on the res, IIRC it was given in a recent evangelical philosophy conference (the name escapes me). Timothy McGrew, and he's got a paper titled "Direct Inference and the Problem of Induction" which I have yet to be able to understand. His mission there is to argue that "the form of direct inference I [McGrew] am defending provides the key to the refutation of Humean skepticism -- theoretical and practical, historical and modern -- regarding induction."

I don't except you to attempt to refute it (I wouldn't understand a sucessful response anyway!) but take a look. I do think I have some onus, since I make the claim that induction is a legitimate form of inference.

Also, I fully appreciate the lack of space for a full-fledged exegesis. I (honestly!) expect to take that up with exegetes and STers and it was somewhat of an amusing thing to continually highlight areas that need to be covered (for a complete discussion, anyway). This is why I didn't try to set up strawmen of Reformed theology and attack them. The main reason why I did highlight the question of exegesis--that it was somewhat amusing was a latent effect--is that in a debate at this level, where I assume a big system and you assume a big system, it's important to keep in mind that some of the most fundamental questions are, and cannot be here discussed, left untouched. For my personal psyche and for any spectators.

About irrational forces--it's just that the fact we don't hold all our beliefs with exactly rational justification is made clear to me on a weekly basis. It's not about calling people irrational, but it's just noting, in a very uncompromising way, that emotion plays a significant role in the shaping and taking of our beliefs.

 

[Jon_]

I think the burden of proof remains on you to show that induction is valid.
Hm. I'm looking at a paper published by (apparently) a specialist on probability; he made a response to Plantinga's attack on the res, IIRC it was given in a recent evangelical philosophy conference (the name escapes me). Timothy McGrew, and he's got a paper titled "Direct Inference and the Problem of Induction" which I have yet to be able to understand. His mission there is to argue that "the form of direct inference I [McGrew] am defending provides the key to the refutation of Humean skepticism -- theoretical and practical, historical and modern -- regarding induction."

I don't except you to attempt to refute it (I wouldn't understand a sucessful response anyway!) but take a look. I do think I have some onus, since I make the claim that induction is a legitimate form of inference.
beliefs.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at the article and let you know what I think; although, if you cannot understand it, I have little confidence that I will be able to, either.

Also, I fully appreciate the lack of space for a full-fledged exegesis. I (honestly!) expect to take that up with exegetes and STers and it was somewhat of an amusing thing to continually highlight areas that need to be covered (for a complete discussion, anyway). This is why I didn't try to set up strawmen of Reformed theology and attack them. The main reason why I did highlight the question of exegesis--that it was somewhat amusing was a latent effect--is that in a debate at this level, where I assume a big system and you assume a big system, it's important to keep in mind that some of the most fundamental questions are, and cannot be here discussed, left untouched. For my personal psyche and for any spectators.

Of course. And that is precisely why I started my blog. I am hoping, God willing, to address these issues and to provide exegetical support for my epistemology and other components of my worldview. I am also hoping and praying that God will refine my understanding, showing me where I err, and revealing to me the knowledge I need to complete the task set before me.

I further recognize the possibility that my worldview could ultimately be invalid. In that case, I will readily throw out the canvass and begin anew. As it stands right now, however, I do believe that what I have outlined so far is the biblical view. We'll see if premises and inferences lead to that conclusion.

About irrational forces--it's just that the fact we don't hold all our beliefs with exactly rational justification is made clear to me on a weekly basis. It's not about calling people irrational, but it's just noting, in a very uncompromising way, that emotion plays a significant role in the shaping and taking of our beliefs.

Ah, yes. If you consider our first principles to be irrational, then there was a slight paradigm shift for me in that regard. That shift was that I came to full confidence in the proposition that outside of the Bible there is no justifiable truth. I do not make the argument that extra-biblical propositions are false, only that they lack justification, and thus, cannot qualify as knowledge, strictly speaking. (Colloquially, we use the word "know" in all sorts of ways that do not necessarily mean an epistemological knowledge.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jbarcher]

Of course. And that is precisely why I started my blog. I am hoping, God willing, to address these issues and to provide exegetical support for my epistemology and other components of my worldview. I am also hoping and praying that God will refine my understanding, showing me where I err, and revealing to me the knowledge I need to complete the task set before me.

I further recognize the possibility that my worldview could ultimately be invalid. In that case, I will readily throw out the canvass and begin anew. As it stands right now, however, I do believe that what I have outlined so far is the biblical view. We'll see if premises and inferences lead to that conclusion.

In summary, soli deo gloria.

 

[Nse007]

I believe that he is in Seattle. However, I'm not sure. But, he's returning to Maryland this weekend for the wedding between two members of our church. I'll ask him them. It will be good to see him again-he's like a big older brother who never quite grew up. He tells the corniest jokes and expects all of his poor victims (whoops, I mean friends) to laugh. . .

Ehh hemmmm.....(clearing throat). I represent that remark!

Nse007

 

[Erinwilcox]

Ehh hemmmm.....(clearing throat). I represent that remark!

Nse007

Oops! You found me out! I can just see you saying that! Anyway. . ."don't run with torches?" I'll have to admit that that one was funny! You should have said flashlights, though. . .

Just don't tell everyone what I'm really like . . .
then we'd really be in trouble!