Clarkian Knowledge and Archetypal/Ectypal Theology
- Thread starter Civbert
- Start date
- Status
Well that depends on what you mean by know. When you experience something - what then do you know?
But that is exactly what it does. Since a blind man can not "experience" blue, he can only know what blue is "like". And the question was, how do you know what blue is like. How else would you communicate what blue is "like" to a blind man.
Whatever can not be communicated in words - is not, by definition, knowledge.
Of course not, but then that is not the same "knowledge" as we have been using it. If we start saying that every time we use of the word "know", it has to agree with every use in scripture we are going to find it impossible to "know" anything. And that is because the bible does not use the term "know" with the same meaning each time. When I claim to know "David was the king of Israel", I certainly do not mean "know" in the same sense that Adam "knew" Eve.
It is very seductive to say that Christian knowledge is more than mere cold, rational propositions. But this is a pejorative description of knowledge. To know God, to know Scripture, would necessarily lead to fear, humility, gratitude, etc. But the emotions that follow knowledge of God, are not the knowledge itself. We do not base our Christian faith on "emotional" reactions to our beliefs.
And I dare say that if someone claims to know the Word, and he does not react with fear and humility, and gratitude, then he doesn't really know the Word. That is, he has not shown any evidence of believing what he claims to know. Knowledge presumes belief, and evidence of believing that God is a jealous God and "an all consuming fire" ought to be at least some real discomfort. If believing that "Jesus died for my sins", and that "faith is a free gift of God", doesn't knock me to my knees in prayer, than maybe I don't really believe it. The emotions are reactions, they are NOT the knowledge that produces them. If they were, then since we all react differently and in different degrees, then no one knows anything that anyone else knows.
I think you are forcing 20th century categories on Old Testament ideas. The writers of the OT did not speak about any "rich emotional expressions". In fact, I don't know if the word "emotion" appears in Scripture. I think the idea of "intellect" verse "emotion" is a relatively modern and humanistic conception.
Defining knowledge as something beyond propositional truths would necessarily lead to mysticism, experientialism, and irrationalism. We do not need to divorce our reactions to knowledge from the knowledge - just not define our knowledge in terms of emotion and irrational experiences.
Where does it say that knowledge is inexpressible?
I think we are starting to equivocate. To "know" your wife in the "biblical" "Adam and Eve" sense is not the same as to know Paul traveled to Rome.
If you want to define knowledge something beyond what can be expressed in words, then you are going to have trouble with systematic theology or any thing like univocal knowledge. A knowledge that includes mystical experience is not communicable. What you think you know, I can never know. And when you read "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee;" you will not know what that means because you have not had the experience of walking in Galilee.
Now what does this have to do with AT/ET.....?
I could have bet someone my entire life savings what your response would be Anthony. You're very predictable.
Nobody asked what blue was like. The point is that blue cannot be communicated by words. Only a Clarkian would tell me I don't "know" what Blue is. It plays well with idealists. As a philosophy, it is out of touch with reality. Arguing over whether a man knows what blue is is philosophy for a dilettante. Nice to sit around smoking our pipes making such foolish statements.
Well, that's your problem though. The only way a Clarkian knows how to use the word "know" is justified true belief. The Bible has a richer understanding of it.
My true pejorative was to point out that your expression of God's truth neglects aspects of the character of God's revelation and the way we know God. Only you would think the choice is between pure propositions and experience. You err on the side of the one without the other. The Bible expresses both. I know the Scriptures. The way you talk about God is out of step with them.
Funny, I think you're forcing idealistic rational categories on the Scriptures in a modern and humanistic way. I don't have a problem jumping back and forth between didactic an poetic expressions of the Word. You're comfortable only in one sphere of knowledge.
Lack of nuance and imbalanced. Typical. Knowledge is only one thing.
Put down your philosophy textbook and read the Word of God. I pray the Holy Spirit will lead you into this obvious truth.
Maybe you can argue with God some more for using that word in Revelation. Very frustrating when God is uncooperative with our systems.
Again, I'm agreeing with the Word (and historic Reformed categories) that knowledge includes the didactic as well as inexpressible things. Just because I can use a metaphor to tell you what I was thinking about when I saw my kids born does not tell you what I know about those events.
Underscores how your limited view of knowledge is not the way the Word speaks of it. Give men the Word of God and it resonates with human experience. It richly portrays mankind in his created complexity and how God interacts with men in human history. Your philosophy is reminiscent of most other ideal philosophies that create philosophical conceptions of philosophy but nobody in the real world utilizes because it disallows what every human knows is true. Your insistence that we know nothing from experience is no less absurd to me than Spinoza's insistence that we're all really part of one mind.
That's good right?. It means I am consistent. Thanks. But somehow, I don't think that was meant as a compliment. It's sad that a moderator is now lowering the tone of this thread.
And I wasn't asked "what is blue" and I didn't try to tell you what is blue. I was asked what seeing blue is like.
And that calls for a simile, which is a proposition.
Nice talking to you Rich. It's a real pleasure. Perhaps you can be a little less personally insulting and I'll consider interacting with you.
Well I'm sad that you're sad. How does that make you feel?
True. I should have said that your simile was lame.
What is blue then? Not what is blue like but what is blue.
I like the way you summarized the way I sized up your philosophy of knowledge. I don't understand how I was personally insulting in the way I used those any more than I could have considered your comments personally insulting when you referred to my views as "emotional" and telling me I'd have a problem with systematic theology given my views of knowledge. If you don't want to interact on this thread any more than it really doesn't hurt my feelings.
Incidentally, I've changed the title of the thread again to reflect this is not merely about knowledge.
I'm still not getting you.
Maybe an example would help - something less abstract.
(and I'm not saying abstraction is a negative, I just want to simple example of experience leading to knowledge.)
God "spoke". He did not send us his feeling or sensations or experiences. He "spoke" means words. Various ways means written, out loud, in dreams, through angles, through a burning bush. God speaks, man hears. Is that what you mean by experience, the experience of hearing and understanding?
What's the connection with AT/ET?
I would differentiate between propositions and their verbalized form. The verbalized form of a proposition can take many forms. Different languages, different word orders, different composition of words can convey the same proposition. When God tells us Jesus dies on the cross, it doesn't matter what language, or if it's written or spoken. I know what
I define a proposition as the meaning of a statement or sentence with conveys a truth. A proposition is composed of a subject, predicate and copula. The only thing we can say we know as true or false is a sentence or statement which can be put into the form of such as "A is B". Propositions convey the state of things, what is true or false about something - like all men are sinners. Usually we are not actively conscious of the propositional form of statements, but non-the-less, if we can say "this thing is true" or "that is false" we are speaking about an idea whose meaning is propositional in form. We said a thing is true (or false) about something else.
Anthony,
Insofar as I have been petty and sinful in this, I repent. In light of the Cross of Christ, I can do no less to a fellow heir.
Please forgive me.
Insofar as I have been petty and sinful in this, I repent. In light of the Cross of Christ, I can do no less to a fellow heir.
Please forgive me.
I've reflected upon this a bit more. I don't always put things in the best words when I'm strongly trying to make a point.
First, I am not well-studied in philosophy. I don't claim to be. I might learn more for apologetic purposes but consider the study of its fine points to be a specialized study and not something I'm terribly interested in pursuing.
Second, I'll never be much of a "party follower" in philosophical systems. Those that see things in extreme "you're with me or against me" probably think I'm Van Tillian. They would be wrong to think I'm so committed to a philosophical system to conclude this. Some may even believe my criticism of Clarkian knowledge is because I'm "...for Van Til..." and therefore "...against Clark...." Not so.
In my limited study of the history of philosophy, I tend to agree with those who hold that a valid objection to a philosophy is whether it comports to the universal condition of men.
I heard Bahnsen once lecture that a typical trick of philosophical proponents is to just ignore the anomolies that don't fit within their philosophical framework. He compares it to having a small suitcase that you say you can fit everything within. When you actually go to pack the suitcase and get it closed there are items of clothing sticking out of the sides. Instead of acknowledging the reality that the worldview doesn't account for the anomolies, the philosopher merely takes out the scissors and cuts away the offending material. Anybody who has studied the history of philosophy knows hundreds of examples. Rationalists deny particulars. Empericists deny or ignore universals. Dan Barker, in his debate with Paul Manata, just called some questions "stupid" that he didn't think needed an answer.
What does this have to do with AT/ET? Well ET is the totality of the Revelation of the Word of God. While I don't consider myself much of a student of the finer points of philosophy, I do consider myself a serious student of the Word of God. I know the voice of my Shepherd through His Word and meditate on the richer meaning of it constantly.
When I state that there is rich, emotional epression in the Word of God, it is a fact. Any student of the Word would understand precisely what I'm saying. When the Psalmist declares: "Oh how I love your Word!" it is a chord that resonates within me. If one's categories only allow me to be "emotional" or "irrational" to say that then I guess I'll have to live with someone's strict definition of the terms.
Honestly, the issues that I have to teach in opposition to most frequently are a neo-Pentecostal expression of the Word of God that substitute experience for the study of the Word. I have to labor hard and long with the immature to teach them to trust the didactic literature of the Word and to study that constantly because it is the basis for which we understand the rest of the Word.
Yet, given the Truth of the propositional language of the Word, when the Spirit works with the Word there is a doxology that flows from the Truth of that knowledge that is joy inexpressible. I am not poetic enough to describe it but the Psalmists are. As I taught through the Psalms it dawned on me that as I understand the rest of the teaching of the Word more and more that the Psalmists' praises and laments resonate more clearly with me. I used to find the songs obscure. Thus, the propositional truth of the Word informs my praise but there is something more in the praise that I cannot describe that the Psalmist does best under inspiration but all understand.
Even without great knowledge of the Word, one only needs to be a human being to appreciate certain language and agree that the sentence: "Adam knew his wife..." is an apt verb to give meaning to what the sexual relationship is between husband and wife.
Thus, I understand I will likely never convince you by philosophical argument to abandon some of your philosophical positions. I frankly will never have the stomach or the interest for the finer points where people are debating points that only a philosopher would question. It's the same reaction I get when Arminians try to philosophically defend the idea that man is not responsible for his sin in a compatabilist universe. We all know we're responsible until somebody comes along and tries to convince us we're not. It's the same thing with our Moms. We all know who are Moms are until a philosopher tries to convince us that we don't really know such information.
Thus, when Rev. Winzer states that our knowledge of God is primarily relational it is something that 99% of Christ's sheep are going to say: "That's a great way of putting that!" It expresses a profound principle in a compact way. Let me suggest that, with intent to be loving and helpful to you, the fact that you challenge such language concerns me. I don't understand how a man that knows God in His Word could possibly challenge this. Because I'm concerned I want to say in so many words: "Dude, put down the Clark stuff for a second because the rest of us totally get that and I can't believe you don't!"
Now I suppose we could all be hopelessly deceived. Perhaps that's your position. In short, the fact that your Clarkian views cause you to deny or re-define stuff that everyone takes for granted is much like the guy who is using scissors to cut the offending garments of clothing that don't fit within the suitcase. A philosophy that calls "Adam knew Eve..." as an example of equivocating over what knowledge is causes me grave concern.
I do not wish you ill Anthony and I do consider you a fellow heir. I don't think your philosophy is dangerous but merely that it doesn't account for reality properly. If you believe so then I know I won't convince you with these rambling observations. I would merely suggest that the philosophy will never gain traction with nearly all Christians for the reasons I enumerated. Your philosophy of knowledge will have to do more than tell us that we don't know something unless its propositional. Maybe you're only concerned about being convinced otherwise yourself but you're not going to convince the rest of Christendom that knows what they know without having to be told that they don't know. Even Sophia (1 year old) knows her Daddy and I know her in many ways that neither of can express in propositional language.
I'll never give up that rich knowledge that I have of God and the profound knowledge I have of him for merely what I know of Him propositionally. I know Him propositionally but oh so much more.
Whether after all this you believe it or not, I desire that you know God more deeply as well.
First, I am not well-studied in philosophy. I don't claim to be. I might learn more for apologetic purposes but consider the study of its fine points to be a specialized study and not something I'm terribly interested in pursuing.
Second, I'll never be much of a "party follower" in philosophical systems. Those that see things in extreme "you're with me or against me" probably think I'm Van Tillian. They would be wrong to think I'm so committed to a philosophical system to conclude this. Some may even believe my criticism of Clarkian knowledge is because I'm "...for Van Til..." and therefore "...against Clark...." Not so.
In my limited study of the history of philosophy, I tend to agree with those who hold that a valid objection to a philosophy is whether it comports to the universal condition of men.
I heard Bahnsen once lecture that a typical trick of philosophical proponents is to just ignore the anomolies that don't fit within their philosophical framework. He compares it to having a small suitcase that you say you can fit everything within. When you actually go to pack the suitcase and get it closed there are items of clothing sticking out of the sides. Instead of acknowledging the reality that the worldview doesn't account for the anomolies, the philosopher merely takes out the scissors and cuts away the offending material. Anybody who has studied the history of philosophy knows hundreds of examples. Rationalists deny particulars. Empericists deny or ignore universals. Dan Barker, in his debate with Paul Manata, just called some questions "stupid" that he didn't think needed an answer.
What does this have to do with AT/ET? Well ET is the totality of the Revelation of the Word of God. While I don't consider myself much of a student of the finer points of philosophy, I do consider myself a serious student of the Word of God. I know the voice of my Shepherd through His Word and meditate on the richer meaning of it constantly.
When I state that there is rich, emotional epression in the Word of God, it is a fact. Any student of the Word would understand precisely what I'm saying. When the Psalmist declares: "Oh how I love your Word!" it is a chord that resonates within me. If one's categories only allow me to be "emotional" or "irrational" to say that then I guess I'll have to live with someone's strict definition of the terms.
Honestly, the issues that I have to teach in opposition to most frequently are a neo-Pentecostal expression of the Word of God that substitute experience for the study of the Word. I have to labor hard and long with the immature to teach them to trust the didactic literature of the Word and to study that constantly because it is the basis for which we understand the rest of the Word.
Yet, given the Truth of the propositional language of the Word, when the Spirit works with the Word there is a doxology that flows from the Truth of that knowledge that is joy inexpressible. I am not poetic enough to describe it but the Psalmists are. As I taught through the Psalms it dawned on me that as I understand the rest of the teaching of the Word more and more that the Psalmists' praises and laments resonate more clearly with me. I used to find the songs obscure. Thus, the propositional truth of the Word informs my praise but there is something more in the praise that I cannot describe that the Psalmist does best under inspiration but all understand.
Even without great knowledge of the Word, one only needs to be a human being to appreciate certain language and agree that the sentence: "Adam knew his wife..." is an apt verb to give meaning to what the sexual relationship is between husband and wife.
Thus, I understand I will likely never convince you by philosophical argument to abandon some of your philosophical positions. I frankly will never have the stomach or the interest for the finer points where people are debating points that only a philosopher would question. It's the same reaction I get when Arminians try to philosophically defend the idea that man is not responsible for his sin in a compatabilist universe. We all know we're responsible until somebody comes along and tries to convince us we're not. It's the same thing with our Moms. We all know who are Moms are until a philosopher tries to convince us that we don't really know such information.
Thus, when Rev. Winzer states that our knowledge of God is primarily relational it is something that 99% of Christ's sheep are going to say: "That's a great way of putting that!" It expresses a profound principle in a compact way. Let me suggest that, with intent to be loving and helpful to you, the fact that you challenge such language concerns me. I don't understand how a man that knows God in His Word could possibly challenge this. Because I'm concerned I want to say in so many words: "Dude, put down the Clark stuff for a second because the rest of us totally get that and I can't believe you don't!"
Now I suppose we could all be hopelessly deceived. Perhaps that's your position. In short, the fact that your Clarkian views cause you to deny or re-define stuff that everyone takes for granted is much like the guy who is using scissors to cut the offending garments of clothing that don't fit within the suitcase. A philosophy that calls "Adam knew Eve..." as an example of equivocating over what knowledge is causes me grave concern.
I do not wish you ill Anthony and I do consider you a fellow heir. I don't think your philosophy is dangerous but merely that it doesn't account for reality properly. If you believe so then I know I won't convince you with these rambling observations. I would merely suggest that the philosophy will never gain traction with nearly all Christians for the reasons I enumerated. Your philosophy of knowledge will have to do more than tell us that we don't know something unless its propositional. Maybe you're only concerned about being convinced otherwise yourself but you're not going to convince the rest of Christendom that knows what they know without having to be told that they don't know. Even Sophia (1 year old) knows her Daddy and I know her in many ways that neither of can express in propositional language.
I'll never give up that rich knowledge that I have of God and the profound knowledge I have of him for merely what I know of Him propositionally. I know Him propositionally but oh so much more.
Whether after all this you believe it or not, I desire that you know God more deeply as well.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This doesn't help, Anthony. I'm sorry. I'm not getting the logical connections. I understand that proposition goes beyond language, that the same proposition may be stated in several different ways, using different languages, or even different words in the same language, without changing the original proposition. You're pointing to the structure itself. I've got that, and I agree with that notion.
But you are pointing to that which may be known, and how it may be known. The AT/ET model points to him who is the knower of that which may be known, whether it is AT of God (and perhaps angels too, although we have not discussed that as yet), or ET of God or man. I do not see these models as necessarily mutually exclusive, as much as talking about different things within the same topic. However, I can't fit your propositional model of that which may be known into the AT/ET model of the minds of the knowers, because neither one agrees satisfactorily with how I understand these things. (Not that I have a carefully and fully formulated understanding, but that I at least have a basic structure in place.)
My basic structure begins with God's simplicity, that to know and to be are not two different things to God. Knowledge, therefore, is primarily revelation of God's character. So far, we're agreed, as far as I can see. You call that proposition, and I would not; and that's where we begin to differ. I see creation as revelation too. That is, revelation can be displayed in more ways than proposition. Granted that God spoke, and things came into being. But it is an accommodation of God's character, not just of His knowledge, to assert from that revelation that knowledge is propositional for God as well. It tends to violate the simplicity of God. Thus the AT/ET model is superior in this respect, it seems to me.
However, the AT/ET model, as superior as it may be in respecting God's character in terms of His knowledge, must be careful not do the same in subsequent assertions. And this is where I am having trouble with that model. But that's another thread now, and not this one.
I
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Rev. Winzer writes:
While sidelined I naturally have been following this thread with some interested, and aside from some mischaracterizations of Clark’s Scripturalism, I do want to take issue with Rev. Winzer’s assertion that “knowledge requires experience.” While there are many examples I could chose, I think Jesus’ exchange with Peter in Matthew 16 is enough to overthrow this notion that knowledge requires experience. Multitudes experienced first hand the miracles of Jesus and I’m quite sure they were filled with awe and any number of emotions, but none of these experiences, regardless of how powerful, provided anyone with any knowledge whatsoever concerning the truth of who Jesus is. So-called “Act-revelation” was completely besides the point to those witnessing these mighty works of God even right before their very eyes as not one of the multitude arrived at any knowledge at all concerning who Jesus was. Yet, when Peter correctly identifying Jesus as the Christ, Jesus said; "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
Nowhere does Jesus call Peter blessed for arriving at knowledge via his experience and as a result of “Act-revelation.” Instead, Jesus said that “flesh and blood” (i.e., Peter’s experience) did not reveal the truth to him, but rather it was an immediate act of God the Father that revealed the truth to Peter’s mind.
To quote someone calling himself “The Ghost of Van Til” over on Manata’s blog:
"A genuine Christian epistemolgy requires the premise that God takes the initative in our knowing as he does in our salvation (that is why salvation is called "coming to the knowledge of the truth"). People know only because God causes them to know, not because they have attained knowledge on their own."
If this one account wasn’t enough to disprove Rev. Winzer’s assertion, Jesus also tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. In response to the rich man’s plea that Abraham send Lazarus to his five brother to warn them, Abraham replies; "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."
Jesus tells us that even witnessing the miracle of seeing someone rise from the dead will not convince *or* convict anyone of the truth, which is exactly what did occur when Jesus in fact raised Lazarus from the dead. (Why, even Manata didn't believe Van Til's ghost.
) Rather than recognizing Jesus as the Christ, the religious experience of those witnessing this event drove Christ’s enemies to crucify Him. Act-revelation played no cognitive role whatever. Without the Word – the divine propositions – witnessing miracles, having feelings, and whatever else anyone wants to include in the mix play no cognitive role whatsoever. Truth is, by definition, propositional for only propositions can be either true or false.
As I see it, the error of Rev. Winzer and others is that they put their empirical cart before the propositional horse. Paul tells us that Christians “walk by faith, not by sight” and Jesus said man does not live by empirical means alone, but by every word which proceeds from the Father’s mouth. Yet, Rev. Winzer asserts here and in another thread (the one Paul Manata regularly links to) that experiences play a cognitive role, but nowhere does he actually demonstrate what that is or even how it might work.
Finally, knowledge does not require experience, for if it did, then God, who is an immutable and pure spirit, could not know anything.
While sidelined I naturally have been following this thread with some interested, and aside from some mischaracterizations of Clark’s Scripturalism, I do want to take issue with Rev. Winzer’s assertion that “knowledge requires experience.” While there are many examples I could chose, I think Jesus’ exchange with Peter in Matthew 16 is enough to overthrow this notion that knowledge requires experience. Multitudes experienced first hand the miracles of Jesus and I’m quite sure they were filled with awe and any number of emotions, but none of these experiences, regardless of how powerful, provided anyone with any knowledge whatsoever concerning the truth of who Jesus is. So-called “Act-revelation” was completely besides the point to those witnessing these mighty works of God even right before their very eyes as not one of the multitude arrived at any knowledge at all concerning who Jesus was. Yet, when Peter correctly identifying Jesus as the Christ, Jesus said; "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
Nowhere does Jesus call Peter blessed for arriving at knowledge via his experience and as a result of “Act-revelation.” Instead, Jesus said that “flesh and blood” (i.e., Peter’s experience) did not reveal the truth to him, but rather it was an immediate act of God the Father that revealed the truth to Peter’s mind.
To quote someone calling himself “The Ghost of Van Til” over on Manata’s blog:
"A genuine Christian epistemolgy requires the premise that God takes the initative in our knowing as he does in our salvation (that is why salvation is called "coming to the knowledge of the truth"). People know only because God causes them to know, not because they have attained knowledge on their own."
If this one account wasn’t enough to disprove Rev. Winzer’s assertion, Jesus also tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. In response to the rich man’s plea that Abraham send Lazarus to his five brother to warn them, Abraham replies; "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."
Jesus tells us that even witnessing the miracle of seeing someone rise from the dead will not convince *or* convict anyone of the truth, which is exactly what did occur when Jesus in fact raised Lazarus from the dead. (Why, even Manata didn't believe Van Til's ghost.
) Rather than recognizing Jesus as the Christ, the religious experience of those witnessing this event drove Christ’s enemies to crucify Him. Act-revelation played no cognitive role whatever. Without the Word – the divine propositions – witnessing miracles, having feelings, and whatever else anyone wants to include in the mix play no cognitive role whatsoever. Truth is, by definition, propositional for only propositions can be either true or false. As I see it, the error of Rev. Winzer and others is that they put their empirical cart before the propositional horse. Paul tells us that Christians “walk by faith, not by sight” and Jesus said man does not live by empirical means alone, but by every word which proceeds from the Father’s mouth. Yet, Rev. Winzer asserts here and in another thread (the one Paul Manata regularly links to) that experiences play a cognitive role, but nowhere does he actually demonstrate what that is or even how it might work.
Finally, knowledge does not require experience, for if it did, then God, who is an immutable and pure spirit, could not know anything.
This is the conflation inherent in the propositional-only model of knowledge. The fact that they did not come to a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was does not mean they did not derive knowledge from the miracles. They must have derived some knowledge from them otherwise they would not have marvelled. The people must have known they were seeing something out of the ordinary.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's exactly what you need to demonstrate Rev. Winzer and not merely assert. Scripture explains the miracles and also their didactic purpose in Jesus' ministry. That's a far cry from saying miracles, in and of themselves, are a means of cognition.
How does this follow? Besides, I don't deny that the multitudes marveled. I've said as much above. But having a feeling or a sense of awe or marveling is not a means of cognition nor one of its requirements. You've said it is. Therefore, it is you who needs to demonstrate that "marveling" or whatever other experience you care to mention has epistemic import and that such experiences are, in your words, a requirement for knowledge. As I've already demonstrated, the Scriptures teach the exact opposite of what you assert.
Seeing something out of the ordinary and having it be a means to knowledge are two different things. For example, the Pharisees inferred from their experience of one such miracle that Jesus was possessed and concluded; "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." What exactly then did the Pharisees know as a result of Jesus healing a deaf, dumb demon-possessed man? Seem to me nothing.
You acknowledge that they saw something out of the ordinary. Their experience led to knowledge. I rest my case.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't know why you're resting your case, because you haven't made one yet.
You have yet to show how seeing something has any cognitive import at all according to the Scriptures or according to anything else for that matter. It seems to me you've forgotten the Lord's word in Jeremiah 5: 'Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes, but see not; Who have ears, but hear not." Seeing something with the eyes in your head is not a means of cognition. So says the Lord anyway.
I'm resting my case because everything you say depends upon a belief that what is seen is known. You have said it again in the beginning of paragraph 2, when you refer to "seeing something." Your instinctive use of a predicate in reference to the action of seeing demonstrates perfectly that knowledge comes by means of experience.
As for Jeremiah, you are proving my case. The people are SENSELESS because they have eyes but see not. This means that a SENSIBLE person has eyes AND sees. The Lord's rebuke is applicable only on the supposition that eyesight leads to seeing.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually, seeing something doesn't answer the question of either what or how? Like I've said, you merely assert what you need to demonstrate. The biblical material adduced already speaks volumes against your position, but evidently you can't *see* that.
As John Robbins wrote some years ago:
So far you've provided no account whatever for your position that "knowledge requires experience." The Scriptures nowhere supports either your "relational" existentialism or your empiricism and Jeremiah provides you no support either.
Seeing and hearing in Scripture is more often than not a metaphor for understanding and belief, as it is in Jeremiah and as it is used repeatedly in the NT. Seeing and hearing has to do with intellection - not sensation.
Another example of this is what Jesus said in Mat 13:
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."
Notice, Jesus speaks and those who hear do not hear. I think we can assume their auditory equipment was functioning fine. The problem Jesus tells us was not that the people needed hearing aids, rather they didn't understand and they didn't believe. The Lord's rebuke has to do with unbelief and it has absolutely nothing to do with "supposition that eyesight leads to seeing." To suggest these passage are advancing some sort of sensate philosophy such as the one you are advancing is absurd.
Thankyou for the quote from John Robbins: "Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true." Now, Sean, you have already acknowledged that the people saw something out of the ordinary when they saw the miracles of Christ. Miracles of Christ are something out of the ordinary. Ergo, you have acknowledged that in seening the miracles of Christ they came to knowledge, according to the definition of John Robbins.
Stop using predicates in relation to seeing and we will have something to talk about. Otherwise your arguments are nonsense.
Stop using predicates in relation to seeing and we will have something to talk about. Otherwise your arguments are nonsense.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
I guess we don't have anything to talk about since you refuse to account for your assertion that knowledge requires experience.
I'm content at this point to let readers to decide who here is, to use L.'s analogy, using scissors to cut away the offending biblical material that doesn't fit with his own preconceived philosophic notions.
Your attack on propositional revelation in favor of your unsupported and unaccounted for existential or "relational" epistemology is without any biblical warrant at all. But how could it be? Any defense of your position would require the use of propositions, and, since the biblical ones already adduced do not fit your philosophic construct, you simply cut them away or ignore them.
in my opinion your existential or "relational" epistemology is positively dangerous and has more in common with men like Richard Gaffin. Admittedly, you haven't worked out your system nearly as far as he has, but he too prefers the non-rational/relational model as opposed to the revelatory/propositional one advanced by Clark. For Gaffin we are ushered into union with Christ not by mere belief in the propositions of the Gospel alone, but rather through the experience of baptism. For Gaffin knowledge requires experience too.
To echo something you said on another thread, I do fear for any man who is straying into this desert path. May God save you!
Thanks Sean. Welcome back.
Rev. Matthew Winzer, I still am unsure about what your whole point is regarding knowledge requiring experience. Are we simply off on an interesting tangent, or is there somewhere you wanted to go with this.
For the sake of argument, let's say knowledge does require experience (seeing, hearing, whatever). That still does nothing to counter that knowledge is propositional. So that line of reason (experience/knowledge) does not seem to go anywhere.
A further look at the "seeing" and "hearing" to gain knowledge: let's say (again for the sake of argument) that those who saw the miracles of Christ did come away having some ideas about the meaning of what they saw. We still have not established that these ideas are epistemic knowledge. No doubt they interpreted their experiences in light of a priori knowledge, to draw some conclusions - but were the truths of these conclusions justified. Did they have sufficient epistemic justification for the truth of their conclusions?
As far as I'm concerned, unless Christ himself told them the meaning of the miracles, they did not gain any knowledge simply from witnessing them. But even if one disregards my Scripturalism, I don't think any experience itself provides sufficient justification for establishing any truth. It may be sufficient for to them believe what they concluded they saw, but there is no escaping that fact that conclusions based on experience remain uncertain. Thus their conclusions fall short of being knowledge.
So whatever ideas they came away with could only be described as opinions. Any claim of true belief that hinges on the interpretation of an experience has insufficient warrant for calling it knowledge. Experience is wonderful for establishing strong and sometimes reliable opinion, but Calvin is very close when he said "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.”
So I conclude that experience is great for developing scientific opinions, and for "feeling" certain - but is inadequate grounds for producing knowledge. And second, non-propositional knowledge is an oxymoron when trying describe an epistemological principle.
Part of the reason I got into this debate was because I was left with the opinion that many who use the AT/ET model seem to think it shows that God's AT knowledge is non-propositional. I believe this goes far beyond what Scripture tells us, or what can be deduced from Scripture. I've heard that archetypal theology is the knowledge God possesses that he has not revealed to us - and that we know God through ET, the knowledge he has revealed to us. Since we can not know AT, it seems speculative to suppose it is non-propositional - and it does little to help us understand our relationship to God.
Rev. Matthew Winzer, I still am unsure about what your whole point is regarding knowledge requiring experience. Are we simply off on an interesting tangent, or is there somewhere you wanted to go with this.
For the sake of argument, let's say knowledge does require experience (seeing, hearing, whatever). That still does nothing to counter that knowledge is propositional. So that line of reason (experience/knowledge) does not seem to go anywhere.
A further look at the "seeing" and "hearing" to gain knowledge: let's say (again for the sake of argument) that those who saw the miracles of Christ did come away having some ideas about the meaning of what they saw. We still have not established that these ideas are epistemic knowledge. No doubt they interpreted their experiences in light of a priori knowledge, to draw some conclusions - but were the truths of these conclusions justified. Did they have sufficient epistemic justification for the truth of their conclusions?
As far as I'm concerned, unless Christ himself told them the meaning of the miracles, they did not gain any knowledge simply from witnessing them. But even if one disregards my Scripturalism, I don't think any experience itself provides sufficient justification for establishing any truth. It may be sufficient for to them believe what they concluded they saw, but there is no escaping that fact that conclusions based on experience remain uncertain. Thus their conclusions fall short of being knowledge.
So whatever ideas they came away with could only be described as opinions. Any claim of true belief that hinges on the interpretation of an experience has insufficient warrant for calling it knowledge. Experience is wonderful for establishing strong and sometimes reliable opinion, but Calvin is very close when he said "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.”
So I conclude that experience is great for developing scientific opinions, and for "feeling" certain - but is inadequate grounds for producing knowledge. And second, non-propositional knowledge is an oxymoron when trying describe an epistemological principle.
Part of the reason I got into this debate was because I was left with the opinion that many who use the AT/ET model seem to think it shows that God's AT knowledge is non-propositional. I believe this goes far beyond what Scripture tells us, or what can be deduced from Scripture. I've heard that archetypal theology is the knowledge God possesses that he has not revealed to us - and that we know God through ET, the knowledge he has revealed to us. Since we can not know AT, it seems speculative to suppose it is non-propositional - and it does little to help us understand our relationship to God.
The Scriptures bear testimony that when people saw the miracles of Jesus they understood what they were seeing and responded appropriately. Matt. 15:31, "Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."
The Scriptures speak of people believing because they saw. John 20:29, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed."
It is a mongrel species of Scripturalism which disbelieves the Scriptures in order to establish the authority of Scripture. The one phrase, "and ye shall know," repeated numerous times throughout the Bible, suffices as a rebuttal to this nonsense.
I'm sorry but this says nothing about knowledge. All it demonstrates is they believed it was to God's glory.
This only speaks of belief - and the second half - contrary to your position speaks of being more blessed if you believe without seeing Jesus. Thus it weighs against your position.
[bible]John 20:29[/bible]
Very interesting! The ESV has it in the form of a question. This further goes against experience for knowledge. Apparently, experience doesn't even justify belief, much less knowledge.
And of course Mat 16:17 really disproves that knowledge requires experience.
[bible] Mat 16:17 [/bible]
Rev. Winzer. I would appreciate if you answered my question more directly. I still don't see you point and have yet to see a cogent rebuttal. I've looked through the bible where it says "and ye shall know" (33 times in the KJV) and I did not see any example that proves knowledge requires experience. It seems to me to be a strange epistemology that insists that sensory perceptions is necessary for knowledge when the Bible has many examples of the Spirit and the Word of God giving knowledge apart from any experience. Frankly, I don't know what to make of your persistence on this single point.
I was looking more at the phrase "and ye shall know" and it's very interesting. The pattern is God says "I shall do X and Y" and then "ye shall know that I am Lord". But notice that if God had not first said "I shall do X and Y" then it would not follow that they would know God was the Lord. God first has to tell them what He is going to do. It was the Words in advance of the experience that makes it so they would know He was the Lord.
But even so, it does not make "experience" necessary for knowledge. It only shows that in order to know God is the Lord, He has to speak to us first. God speaks, and we know. God reveals, and we know.
But even so, it does not make "experience" necessary for knowledge. It only shows that in order to know God is the Lord, He has to speak to us first. God speaks, and we know. God reveals, and we know.
- Status