Does the observor create his own knowledge?

[mindlight]

I thought the whole point of this exercise was that human observations were based on an inherently flawed foundation. Why bring them up as evidence now?

To be fair I think I chose the wrong title for my original post. I wanted to explore the interaction between these 4 kinds of basis for knowledge (observors creation, language games, correspondence to realities and revelation) and demonstrate that revelation was in fact what saved the other ways of looking at knowing from agnosticism.

With Jesus Christ something entirely unique happened to things we would so like to have settled and clearly defined. In being the human observor he spoke as one of us and redefined the basis of how we reach out to the world, in being immersed in the language games of his time he repatterned these and overthrew dominant cognitive models, in bringing the divine down to the human he opened up the invisible realm to our understanding and thereby extended and deepened our grasp of ultimate realities, in fufilling prophecy and living as he did he demonstrated the fulfilment of Old testament scriptures and was the personality the New testament articulates.

How do you explain the fact that the majority of humanity rejects this "truth" if it is so ingrained in our being?

More than half of humanity recognise the immense significance of Christ as both Muslims and Christians do this. But only a third recognise Christ as he is. There are a great many who have not properly heard the truth, there are a great many who think they know better than the truth, and there are some who are too broken by their experiences to know anything at all. I am hopeful that with modern media and social networking technologies the number of those who have not heard is shrinking rapidly, I am aware that God can melt the hardest heart and turn it back to Him, also there is a reason why gentleness is required in sharing the good news as many are in desperate need of healing and can so easily misunderstand the message that we share.

Will you convert to another religion if I can find they have satisfied believers?

Having taught all the religions and read their major texts and argued with their followers over many years I am happy that I am in the truth and could not deny the reality of my experience of God.

In other words, if you don't already believe, you'll not see the Bible as overwhelming evidence for god.

Yes faith/trust is crucial as it is with all the positions that we ultimately end up taking. The difference between an idol and God is however the reality test.

 

[mindlight]

Not only that, but how does adding an all-powerful being with totally mysterious and unknowable motives make us more certain about what's going on? It seems that adding a being who could change the entirety of history and everything we know without breaking a sweat should make us more uncertain about the world, not less, since anything we know could change at a moment's notice on a whim of that particular god.

This is an interesting point. God is in many ways the great disturber who overthrows everything. For example scientists generally employ a uniformitarian model to describe the world and yet a God like the one in scripture seems to defy the laws derived from this model on innumerable occasions. Jesus walks on water , ascends into the sky, turns water into wine and brings fish and bread out of thin air, he heals a withered arm and makes the blind see, he raises the dead and indeed is raised from the dead. I think one of the pictures I have of my relationship with God is sometimes one of being carried by a giant bird that flies at immense speed and can change direction for agendas I am not aware of. I hang on tightly trusting that the only thing I can be sure of is the bird itself, that it will not drop me and that it carries me to a better place. The world around is sometimes just a blur of change by contrast.

Again i suppose the real Christian contribution to this cognitive matrix is that certainty is in fact possible even amidst the dynamic and restless storm of forces that swirl around us. But very often that certainty is not in the things that we thought we had labelled, bottled and boxed into our tight mental systems but rather in the God that holds us through them.

 

[KCfromNC]

To be fair I think I chose the wrong title for my original post. I wanted to explore the interaction between these 4 kinds of basis for knowledge (observors creation, language games, correspondence to realities and revelation) and demonstrate that revelation was in fact what saved the other ways of looking at knowing from agnosticism.

Sure. First step is to demonstrate that revelation exists and is reliable. Have at it.

With Jesus Christ something entirely unique happened

... in the opinion of Christians. Just like every other religion thinks that something unique founded their religion.

More than half of humanity recognise the immense significance of Christ as both Muslims and Christians do this. But only a third recognise Christ as he is.

This kind of goes against your claim that this belief is now a fundamental part of humanity. When most people don't believe in something, it's not fundamental to humanity at all. It's just another religion that's attached itself to a popular culture.

Having taught all the religions and read their major texts and argued with their followers over many years I am happy that I am in the truth and could not deny the reality of my experience of God.

In other words, no, you wouldn't accept the experiences of believers in other religions as evidence. Why would you expect anyone outside of your religion to behave any differently and accept your word that Jesus is real?

Yes faith/trust is crucial as it is with all the positions that we ultimately end up taking. The difference between an idol and God is however the reality test.

All gods seem to score the same on that test.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is an interesting point. God is in many ways the great disturber who overthrows everything. For example scientists generally employ a uniformitarian model to describe the world and yet a God like the one in scripture seems to defy the laws derived from this model on innumerable occasions. Jesus walks on water , ascends into the sky, turns water into wine and brings fish and bread out of thin air, he heals a withered arm and makes the blind see, he raises the dead and indeed is raised from the dead.

Yep, if god existed it wouldn't make sense to worry about science because there would be no order, only her whim on a particular day. Interestingly enough, though, scientists can make very useful predictions by assuming order and ignoring the shifting moods of an unknowable and unpredictable god. To me, that says that adding the latter doesn't buy us anything in understanding reality.

I think one of the pictures I have of my relationship with God is sometimes one of being carried by a giant bird that flies at immense speed and can change direction for agendas I am not aware of. I hang on tightly trusting that the only thing I can be sure of is the bird itself, that it will not drop me and that it carries me to a better place. The world around is sometimes just a blur of change by contrast.

Seems that with either option you're getting blown around by forces you have no idea about. I don't see how one provides certainty compared to the other.

Again i suppose the real Christian contribution to this cognitive matrix is that certainty is in fact possible even amidst the dynamic and restless storm of forces that swirl around us. But very often that certainty is not in the things that we thought we had labelled, bottled and boxed into our tight mental systems but rather in the God that holds us through them.

All you're doing is repeating your faith that god provides certainty without explaining why or how. This isn't a contribution to knowledge or epistemology. It's just subjective religious faith - which is great if you enjoy it but has nothing to know with certainty, knowledge or truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Some of you might be interested in this video, where a brain scientist relates how a mystical experience in a stroke transformed her outlook on life. It is ok to say "well it's just brain chemistry gone wrong" but we could say that about all meaningful experience: It's just (simply, merely, nothing other or more significant that...) brain chemistry. I think if that approach is too nihilistic for normal states of mind, it may be too nihilistic for others too. What I mean is that there are certain realities that theoretical equations of science etc do not communicate to us. Trying to reduce a mystical state to brain chemistry is about as good as reducing existential being-in-the-world to brain chemistry. The phenomenology of the whole thing is circumvented almost entirely, but that is perhaps the most important part of it (except when it comes to brain surgery). I do not want to be anti-science, it is a good thing; but I don't think that science has all the answers yet. I am not intending to promote "woo", just to say that writing something off as mere brain chemistry is caveman science compared with the task we are facing.


Jill Bolte Taylor describes her mystical stroke 2/2 - YouTube

 

[mindlight]

Sure. First step is to demonstrate that revelation exists and is reliable. Have at it.

The bible is the best selling book of all time so you should be able to get hold of it, if not it is freely available online ;-)

The primary purpose of revelation is to inspire, instruct and guide people in their relationships with God as well as being an historical record of Gods dealings with mankind. If you do not believe in the existence of God you may therefore misread it.

The bible is a reliable historical document and has survived 2-3 centuries of intense scrutiny unlike most other religious texts.

... in the opinion of Christians. Just like every other religion thinks that something unique founded their religion.

We are the ones to beat though!

This kind of goes against your claim that this belief is now a fundamental part of humanity. When most people don't believe in something, it's not fundamental to humanity at all. It's just another religion that's attached itself to a popular culture.

No I stand by that claim. The power is evidenced in the growth from nothing to a third of humanity. There are populations where the message is only just beginning to be understood. In Africa for instance the % of Christians grew from 1-2 % to 40% in the last hundred years. A net 6 million Muslims a year convert to Christianity. No other religion has influenced the human condition so profoundly nor made such lasting changes to the human psyche

In other words, no, you wouldn't accept the experiences of believers in other religions as evidence. Why would you expect anyone outside of your religion to behave any differently and accept your word that Jesus is real?

I have met their gods of wood and stone and watched them burn and crumble in my imagination. I have read their fantasies and watched them fly away like clouds that pass across the sky.

All gods seem to score the same on that test.

Including the belief that scientific materialism can determine what constitutes the basis of reality in a lasting and meaningful way? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Difference is only the rather reduced scope of most atheists vision and grounds for hope. In the Bible such reductionism was generally regarded as idolatry

 

[mindlight]

Yep, if god existed it wouldn't make sense to worry about science because there would be no order, only her whim on a particular day. Interestingly enough, though, scientists can make very useful predictions by assuming order and ignoring the shifting moods of an unknowable and unpredictable god. To me, that says that adding the latter doesn't buy us anything in understanding reality.

That is not what I said but I think people with faith generally show more humility than Richard dawkins for instance about what science can legitimately achieve. Explanations of our origins and the remote regions of the cosmos being rather beyond the scope of what is possible with this tool.

Seems that with either option you're getting blown around by forces you have no idea about. I don't see how one provides certainty compared to the other.

The only real certainties is that provided by revelation and by our immediate senses. But both must be properly interpreted and the presupposition pools of Western culture are heavily polluted these days.

All you're doing is repeating your faith that god provides certainty without explaining why or how. This isn't a contribution to knowledge or epistemology. It's just subjective religious faith - which is great if you enjoy it but has nothing to know with certainty, knowledge or truth.

The incarnation is the explanation for how we can even begin to talk about God. The love of the God of the Christian scriptures is the best explanation of the why of knowledge. We know because he wants us to know and in his love has made it possible.

No theory of knowledge has such a deep human AND Divine foundation.

No other major religion except Hinduism provides that concept of Incarnation. But Hinduisms problem is that it happens multiple times with different gods and so things can get a little confusing and the historical authenticity of any Hindu scriptures is of extreme doubtfulness.

 

[mindlight]

Some of you might be interested in this video, where a brain scientist relates how a mystical experience in a stroke transformed her outlook on life. It is ok to say "well it's just brain chemistry gone wrong" but we could say that about all meaningful experience: It's just (simply, merely, nothing other or more significant that...) brain chemistry. I think if that approach is too nihilistic for normal states of mind, it may be too nihilistic for others too. What I mean is that there are certain realities that theoretical equations of science etc do not communicate to us. Trying to reduce a mystical state to brain chemistry is about as good as reducing existential being-in-the-world to brain chemistry. The phenomenology of the whole thing is circumvented almost entirely, but that is perhaps the most important part of it (except when it comes to brain surgery). I do not want to be anti-science, it is a good thing; but I don't think that science has all the answers yet. I am not intending to promote "woo", just to say that writing something off as mere brain chemistry is caveman science compared with the task we are facing.

Brain chemistry is important but as you say it's not the whole story

 

[bricklayer]

Does our own psyche/philosophy/neurochemistry form the basis of what we see and how we categorise it or is it possible to base knowledge on an idea of correspondence to reality. Or is it merely the product of language games associated with our particular cultures. Or is the only true knowledge revealed knowledge?

In brief is what we know
1) Created by who we are?
2) Correspond with whats out there
3) Or is knowledge the product of language games
4) Is the only reliable knowledge revealed to us by a higher being.

If 1) How is it that so many people of such different configuration seem to share revealed understandings of reality.

If 2) - can we really ever say we truly see or sense what is out there or are we kidding ourselves. e.g. we observe the universe on the basis of calculations made concerning the electromagnetic spectrum but according to modern physicists that may represent only 3 % of the known universe. dark matter and energy accounting for the unseen and unknown rest.

If 3) How do we know we are playing the right game?

If 4) How do we know we have the right higher being informing us?

You are missing an important distinction with an even more important difference.
There are two types of ideas: intellectual perceptions and intellectual conceptions.
Humans only have intellectual perceptions.
We cannot conceive of an idea that is not eternally present,
in the mind of God.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.