[October's Autumn]

Thanks, minsocal

[minsocal]

October, on Apr 20 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

Thanks, minsocal

You're welcome. I have a similar passion.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 17 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

Epistemology means the theory of the method or grounds of knowledge: the theory of knowledge, or how we know, or how we know we know. (I have to go over that several times to fully comprehend it myself.)

davidk,

I would like to hear your position on the expanded definition of epistomology I provided. Epistomology also examines the nature of justification. Since Socrates, it has grappled with skepticism in various forms. Epistomology includes:

Kinds of knowledge.
The belief condition.
The truth condition.
The justification condition.
The foundationalism-choherentism controversy.
Skepticism.

You seem to be arguing for some form of foundationalism and reject skepticism? Without this being clear, I will not know how to respond further.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 21 April 2008 - 10:20 AM

[minsocal]

I have not yet stated my own beliefs in detail, so here goes.

Cosmology. Wayseer is correct. The choice of a cosmology makes a significant difference. Along with many Progressive Christians, I believe in cosmogenesis. Creation is "in process" and not yet complete. This being the case, there will be new sources of knowledge over time that will periodically move us into different perspectives. The transition to new perspectives is always accompanied by peak periods of uncertainty. This is natural. Put another way, uncertainty can function as a lure that pulls us into new ways of seeing a changing world.

Rationality. I believe that rationality is limited, but a basic human capacity. For me, rationality is more of a process than anything else. Rationality, however, does not guarantee conformity. Ten rational people can produce ten very different perspectives.

Coherency. I prefer coherency in my own belief system over foundationalism. By this I mean having a number of beliefs that fit together in a mutually suporting system. For me, the Eight Points is such a system. Foundationalism proposes that there are certain basic justified beliefs from which other beliefs derive their justification. The problem for me is that if a foundational belief is threatened, the whole structure tends to collapse. Coherency is something like a raft with many planks lashed together. Remove a plank and the raft still floats (up to a point).

Kinds of knowledge. I believe that all kinds of knowledge (see previous post) can fit into a coherent system of beliefs. Rationalism, empiricism (experience) and intuition come together into a holistic network.

Truth Correspondence. Arguments over truth conditions are common. The task for each individual is to make a best case effort to ensure that their beliefs match the real world. There is also the sphere of social facts to consider. Social facts are different and require the agreement of a commnuity in order to exist.

Skepticism. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy and can, like uncertainty, lure us into new ways of knowing. Skepticism in debate, however, is sometimes used to tear down someone elses belief system. The intentions of the user makes the difference.

The Epistemic Perspective. For me, all of this ends in a kind of radical pluralism. It is based on the notion that we need to discard the old concept of subject-object dualism. My thoughts, my feelings, and all that makes up the richness of experience is as much a part of the real world as rocks and trees. In a sense, I am a source of my own knowledge.

[McKenna]

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

To keep myself reasonably clear on this I am using the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" (1995, Audi, Ed). There is an interesting point made in the discussion of epistemology under the sub-heading "Skepticism":

"How can we specify what we know without having specified how we know, and how can we specify how we know without having specified what we know? ... This is one of the most difficult epistemological problems ... Contemporary epistemology still lacks a widely accepted reply to this urgent problem (p. 238)."

I am still trying to grasp this fully myself !!!! Philosophy makes my brain ache sometimes.

According to this source, epistemology is "the study of the nature of knowledge and justification ..." Under the sub-heading "Kinds of knowledge" there is a discussion of "propositional knowldege (that something is so)." There is also "non-propositional knowledge of something (e.g., knowledge by aquaintence or by direct awareness), empirical (a posteriori) propositional knowledge, non-empirical (a priori) propositional knowledge, and knowledge of how to do something (p. 234)."

There are apparently two main issues in the analysis of knowledge and justification: "the sources of knowledge and justification (e.g., rationalism versus empiricism), and the viability of skepticism about knowledge and justification (p. 233)."

This is where I sometimes get confused myself.

Okay I didn't realize the definition was so complicated. I was just going off my basic definition that epistemology is "how we know what we know." I probably oversimplified. But anyway, I was just curious, just a side note

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

There is a subtle point in the story about love and compassion (prior post). The person speaks first of his love flowing out towards another, and then of love flowing back in to him from the congregation (community). Two kinds of tears. A profound experience made possible, in part, by the action of the (progressive) community (the unanimous vote to be a Welcoming Church). I wonder myself, how often do I not let love flow in?

I'm confused, are you saying that it is not just personal experience but also community life that helps define progressive epistemology? But wouldn't community life fall under the category of personal experience as that is part of one's experience? Boy, I'm just confusing myself right and left here...maybe if you dumbed it down a bit I'd understand better?

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Knowledge skepticism comes in different flavors. Extreme skepticism holds that it is "impossible for anyone to know anything (p. 236)." There are weaker and more restricted versions of knowledge skepticism that leave open the possibility of having knowledge. "Such limited skepticism is more common than unrestricted skepticism in the history of epistemology (p. 237)." I think that Progressives lean more towards the weaker versions. At least this is true for me.

I think you're right. Progressives rely on a certain amount of skepticism but most are probably not extreme skeptics. I guess most progressives fall more or less in the middle between extreme skeptics and extreme...non-skeptics? By which I mean people who believe they know everything when it comes to religion (their religion is "right").

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

You are not alone on this point. I have Progressive friends who place a strong emphasis on experience. Then I know others that blend rationalism and experience, and so on. In other words, Progressive Christianity can be pluralistic in two senses of the word. Pluralistic when looking at other belief systems and pluralistic at the personal level.

I agree that it can be pluralistic in both senses. Do you see this as a positive thing? I do, and I assume most progressives do, but I think conservatives would see it as negative (as I believe DavidK has essentially stated). I wonder why this is so? I suppose this goes back, again, to epistemology, and the fact that progressives are okay dealing with some skepticism and ambiguity. That allows for pluralism at the personal level, at least, and it's relatively easy to transfer that into pluralism in terms of belief systems in general.

davidk, on Apr 20 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

When we read Jesus' words they 'ring true' to us. Our moral motions of good and evil are being verbalized in a manner we reasonably understand. Our moral motions, an inuition, indicate we 'know' there is a right and a wrong. Jesus spoke objectively, by His authority, confirming what we 'know' to be true. This confirmation therefore makes our epistemology ('how we know we know') complete and certain. The objective authority of that knowledge told us.

The problem here with regards to progressive epistemology/theology is that most progressives probably don't regard Jesus as an objective source of confirmation, as Jesus tends to be viewed as more human than divine, at least pre-Resurrection. (Maybe I'm wrong here, and it definitely depends on who you ask, but this is the impression I've gotten talking to progressives.) Thus while the latter part of your explanation makes sense with regards to conservative theology, it doesn't necessarily apply to progressive theology. Which I guess brings us progressives back to square one.

I would agree though that Jesus' words 'ring true' to us. So - to other progressives - why can we accept them as truth? Upon what epistemological basis? Minsocal may have tried to answer this earlier...I'm not sure...I'm a bit over my head here

[McKenna]

minsocal, on Apr 21 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

I have not yet stated my own beliefs in detail, so here goes.

Cosmology. Wayseer is correct. The choice of a cosmology makes a significant difference. Along with many Progressive Christians, I believe in cosmogenesis. Creation is "in process" and not yet complete. This being the case, there will be new sources of knowledge over time that will periodically move us into different perspectives. The transition to new perspectives is always accompanied by peak periods of uncertainty. This is natural. Put another way, uncertainty can function as a lure that pulls us into new ways of seeing a changing world.

Rationality. I believe that rationality is limited, but a basic human capacity. For me, rationality is more of a process than anything else. Rationality, however, does not guarantee conformity. Ten rational people can produce ten very different perspectives.

Coherency. I prefer coherency in my own belief system over foundationalism. By this I mean having a number of beliefs that fit together in a mutually suporting system. For me, the Eight Points is such a system. Foundationalism proposes that there are certain basic justified beliefs from which other beliefs derive their justification. The problem for me is that if a foundational belief is threatened, the whole structure tends to collapse. Coherency is something like a raft with many planks lashed together. Remove a plank and the raft still floats (up to a point).

Kinds of knowledge. I believe that all kinds of knowledge (see previous post) can fit into a coherent system of beliefs. Rationalism, empiricism (experience) and intuition come together into a holistic network.

Truth Correspondence. Arguments over truth conditions are common. The task for each individual is to make a best case effort to ensure that their beliefs match the real world. There is also the sphere of social facts to consider. Social facts are different and require the agreement of a commnuity in order to exist.

Skepticism. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy and can, like uncertainty, lure us into new ways of knowing. Skepticism in debate, however, is sometimes used to tear down someone elses belief system. The intentions of the user makes the difference.

The Epistemic Perspective. For me, all of this ends in a kind of radical pluralism. It is based on the notion that we need to discard the old concept of subject-object dualism. My thoughts, my feelings, and all that makes up the richness of experience is as much a part of the real world as rocks and trees. In a sense, I am a source of my own knowledge.

Thanks for sharing, minsocal! That was really interesting

One question about coherency though. If the beliefs are mutually supportive, doesn't that imply (to an extent at least) some kind of circular logic? I mean, I prefer it to foundationalism (as it seems to me that often the foundations must simply be accepted, without there necessarily being any evidence to back them up), but it does seem like it could be a problem. Just thought I'd ask

[davidk]

I read it. Then I re-read it.
I wrote a line by line response. Deleted it.
Where, oh where, do I start?
How do I say it? I tried to find something solid to hang on to, I really did. You have been thoughtful and considerate. I hate it. But like you said we kinda put it out there and take the risk. I love you, man, so I gotta say this.

I suppose it all boils down to your last statement: "In a sense, I am a source of my own knowledge."

Since all of your catagories ended with some form of uncertainty... you have left yourself with a box full of parts, and...

Is no one there to provide any meaning to them?...................... Silence.

[Wayseer]

David, on Apr 19 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

You evidently did not find my statement with the reference to Santa Claus as logical. Your expertise on logic is far and away more than mine. Please provide me with the logical analysis. Maybe I can put it in a more understandable, logical way? I certainly am saying that the god of the Church of DavidK is no more real than Santa Claus. How can I say that more logically?

So yes I see a fundamental difference when we look at epistemology and each position comes with truth claims or claims to “what is real”. What is your point? To me this is not on the level of which flavor of ice cream you like. On the other hand I would not send out troops to enforce the position in a war. To me the matter is not inconsequential, but if you do not see it as important for yourself, then that is fine.

David I am sorry I have not responded earlier - some work about the place needed attention.

I have to admit I am not at all sure where you are coming from - particullarly your reference to 'demonstratable example'.

What I have been attempting to point out is that references such as, the 'god of Davidk's church being like Santa Claus' is just as subjective as Davidk claiming liberal theologists do not know anything because everything is subjective. My argument is that the way by which subjectivity is turned into objectivity is through 'power' - whether such power emanates from the halls of academia or explodes out of the barrel of a gun. Power may be demostrated by killing - it may also be demonstrated by 'killing softly' - either way the exercise is to silence any opposition. One may be brutal, the other subtle but just as effective.

Of course opposition is never completly silenced, just as genocide never happens - there is always a remnant - there is always a lone voice like one crying in the wilderness.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 21 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

I read it. Then I re-read it.
I wrote a line by line response. Deleted it.
Where, oh where, do I start?
How do I say it? I tried to find something solid to hang on to, I really did. You have been thoughtful and considerate. I hate it. But like you said we kinda put it out there and take the risk. I love you, man, so I gotta say this.

I suppose it all boils down to your last statement: "In a sense, I am a source of my own knowledge."

Since all of your catagories ended with some form of uncertainty... you have left yourself with a box full of parts, and...

Is no one there to provide any meaning to them?...................... Silence.

The life and teachings of Jesus provide meaning for me. My early skepticism gradually gave way as my experience added to what I was taught as a child. I consider the teachings of Jesus to be authoritative (not to be confused with authoritarian) and profound wisdom beyond mere knowledge. Elsewhere I mentioned the possibility of an intuitive awareness of God (as well as an intuitive understanding of the teachings of Jesus). Speaking personally, this is the case with me. What I am talking about is better explained in "Borg And Post-critical Naivete," the thread started by fatherman here in Debate and Dialogue.

The difference for me is between the words "authoritative" and "objective", but the teachings of Jesus 'ring true to us' as you said. In the definition of epistomology I provided, non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed).

This isn't wholly my own, but I now see Jesus as a beloved mentor.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 10:32 AM

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Apr 21 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Thanks for sharing, minsocal! That was really interesting

One question about coherency though. If the beliefs are mutually supportive, doesn't that imply (to an extent at least) some kind of circular logic? I mean, I prefer it to foundationalism (as it seems to me that often the foundations must simply be accepted, without there necessarily being any evidence to back them up), but it does seem like it could be a problem. Just thought I'd ask

The problem of circularity is debated between foundationalists and coherentists. Then, lo and behold, the two sides sometimes agree that they need each other to some degree. I think many progressives have a problem with "accepted" meaning imposed upon them by an authoritarian source? (I know, a risky proposition). The "without any evidence" problem is also sticky, I agree. It gets a little easier if the word "accepted" is replaced by the words "consciously selected". One of my favorite philosphers suggests this is exactly what we should do. Make a conscious selection and place it into your belief system regardless of structure. It is, after all, your right to do so. In a sense, he is saying don't worry too much about conflicting with theology and philosophy (they have their own conflicts).

Joseph Campbell put it well, the secret is "the experience of life as a self-responsible individual". Follow your bliss.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 11:23 AM

[davidk]

-
Wayseer,
If you start with David's premise, he has a logical argument. The reason we both have difficulty with it is, he starts with a false premise, thereby resulting in a false product. He has a vivid imagination.
Thanks.

I'd like to add that all human viewpoints lean toward the subjective. Only God can provide the real objective view. His power is total and just.
-

McKenna
"Okay I didn't realize the definition was so complicated. I was just going off my basic definition that epistemology is "how we know what we know."
Your basic definition covers all that he is including. Don't let it confuse you.

"Which I guess brings us progressives back to square one." Yup.
-

minsocal,

I'd have to say, from your post #46, "... my own beliefs in detail,..." , I didn't see Jesus mentioned anywhere as authoritative or objective, about anything; or as a source for wisdom/knowledge. Am I assuming too much if that leads me to believe you do not consider Jesus as but one of many sources, yourself included?

"...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."
How can you know you know if sources are irrational? This source is irrational.

If you believe in cosmogenesis, sort of a codified doctrine of uncertainty, can there be any coherence in your beliefs, like truth and knowledge that has yet to be exposed and then subject to change at any moment? Ah, the answer is in your experience, which will likewise be subject change along with any of the meanings it ever had.

You do have a right to believe whatever you desire, even if it makes no sense. " Make a conscious selection and place it into your belief system regardless of structure."
-
It is unfortunate, but there is nothing in your 7 points of belief, on post #46, that suggests a Christian perspective.
-

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 20 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

minsocal, you have been the first to put forth what may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology, Point 1. And your post #33 states the issues I am trying to flesh out one step at a time so we don't get ahead of ourselves.

"Viewed in this manner, some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and the possiblity of continuous growth and a more spiritual life." - minsocal
I believe you're on the right track here. To explain, I would paraphrase; Some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and to the possibility of continuous growth toward certainty for a more fulfilling spiritual life. We all move in this direction, because uncertainty provides no fulfillment.

When we read Jesus' words they 'ring true' to us. Our moral motions of good and evil are being verbalized in a manner we reasonably understand. Our moral motions, an inuition, indicate we 'know' there is a right and a wrong. Jesus spoke objectively, by His authority, confirming what we 'know' to be true. This confirmation therefore makes our epistemology ('how we know we know') complete and certain. The objective authority of that knowledge told us.

Point 1

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.

You contradict yourself now.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 22 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

minsocal,

I'd have to say, from your post #46, "... my own beliefs in detail,..." , I didn't see Jesus mentioned anywhere as authoritative or objective, about anything; or as a source for wisdom/knowledge. Am I assuming too much if that leads me to believe you do not consider Jesus as but one of many sources, yourself included?

"...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."
How can you know you know if sources are irrational? This source is irrational.

If you believe in cosmogenesis, sort of a codified doctrine of uncertainty, can there be any coherence in your beliefs, like truth and knowledge that has yet to be exposed and then subject to change at any moment? Ah, the answer is in your experience, which will likewise be subject change along with any of the meanings it ever had.

You do have a right to believe whatever you desire, even if it makes no sense. " Make a conscious selection and place it into your belief system regardless of structure."
-
It is unfortunate, but there is nothing in your 7 points of belief, on post #46, that suggests a Christian perspective.
-

Point 1. See your own response to a postion I had previously stated (see post 52).

Point 2. This is a direct quote from a highly regarded source. Argue with the editors, not me.

Point 3. Cosomogenisis is Bible based. Do your own research.

Point 4. No comment.

Point 5. Please stop overextending a subject. This was my response on the subject of epistomology. Your comment could be construed as rude.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 04:09 PM

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 23 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

Point 1

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.

Hmmm .... and here I was thinking that all Christians 'found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus'. In other words, I dare say fundamentalists would make the same claim. How then is PC different?

Davidk writes

Quote

Wayseer,
If you start with David's premise, he has a logical argument. The reason we both have difficulty with it is, he starts with a false premise, thereby resulting in a false product. He has a vivid imagination.
Thanks.

Which is my point - you both claim the high moral ground - that it is the other who is the false prophet.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 22 April 2008 - 05:31 PM

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 22 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Hmmm .... and here I was thinking that all Christians 'found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus'. In other words, I dare say fundamentalists would make the same claim. How then is PC different?

Davidk writes
Which is my point - you both claim the high moral ground - that it is the other who is the false prophet.

Not MY claim, others can speak for themselves. Can't be if I follow the Eight Points.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 05:52 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 20 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

minsocal, you have been the first to put forth what may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology, Point 1. And your post #33 states the issues I am trying to flesh out one step at a time so we don't get ahead of ourselves. There is more history to hear.

There seems to be some misunderstanding considering the history of Progressive Epistemology. My grandparents understood it, my parents understood it, and they passed it on to me. It's even older than that, I have been told. We?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 20 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

minsocal, you have been the first to put forth what may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology, Point 1. And your post #33 states the issues I am trying to flesh out one step at a time so we don't get ahead of ourselves. There is more history to hear.

There seems to be some confusion here concerning the history of Progressive Epistomology. My grandparents understood it, my parents understood it, and they passed it on to me. Yes davidk, there is more history to hear. I am asking you to listen to Progressives who know their own history. Who is we?

A year ago, I started a family genogram. It turns out that my great-great-grandmother on my mother's side of the family was born and raised in the state of Neumark, near Konigsberg where Kant taught. Kant was well known in the surrounding area and tutored in neighboring villiages.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 07:34 PM

[minsocal]

Wow ... a double post on a full edit. And, of course, Kant is considered a mainstay in liberal philosophy. Who could have guessed.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 08:05 PM

[minsocal]

davidk,

I said on the other post that I would not debate you on the 'history' of philosophy. I have changed my mind. Consider the following:

http://plato.stanfor...ies/liberalism/

I have traced your 'history' lectures and find no mention of Socrates (skepticism) or liberal philosophy, including Kant. Why is this? Have I missed a post?

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 09:04 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 20 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

When we read Jesus' words they 'ring true' to us. Our moral motions of good and evil are being verbalized in a manner we reasonably understand. Our moral motions, an inuition, indicate we 'know' there is a right and a wrong. Jesus spoke objectively, by His authority, confirming what we 'know' to be true. This confirmation therefore makes our epistemology ('how we know we know') complete and certain. The objective authority of that knowledge told us.

First you agree that intuition is non-rational. Then you spin it into "reasonably understand". I know the tactic you are using. You misrepresent moral intuitions as "good and evil" from the other thread, and there is no direct reference there to this concept. None. Period. You take a theory that is intended to find solutions to critical social justice issues and then bend them to your own needs.

The "moral intuition thread" was intended to ease the discord between liberals and conseravatives, NOT continue them. READ MY LIPS (thank you David).

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 April 2008 - 11:25 PM