Progressive Epistemology

[October's Autumn]

The only attacks I can see have been made at him and his views.

 

You might want to go back and look carefully at his very first post. I'll quote it here for you. He started out with an attack. Which is why he is now added to my ignore list.

 

find it very interesting that some can be so proud of their 'humbleness'.

 

If you want to discuss PROGRESSIVE thoughts then davidk has no business posting on the thread since he is not progressive and in his history of posting here has demonstrated not only his ignorance of progressive theology but also his derision for it. What is he going to add to the discussion? I would not trust his writings or understanding of philsophy seeing as how he has shown his lack of ability for basic logic in other areas, unless of course you can cooberate it with another source. It is not to say that everything that comes out his writing is crap but as he himself said once even a blind (animal?) will find a few acorns. (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

[David]

"The fundamentalist will not want to dwell too long on epistemology...which does not lead to any objective certainty. For progressives it is just this lack of objectivity that we know..." -David

As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

-

Just for everyones edification: This had purely been a discussion on the history of Philosophy and the thoughts behind the philosophers, which forms a rational and reasonable epistemological basis. Any personal preferences to religion, God, and the Bible have been purposefully avoided.

-

I wish to apologize to you, McKenna, for the mockery that has been made of your questions. They're notable for their discernment and should not have been treated the way they have.

Perhaps in your rush to give us an objective history of philosophy you did not actually read McKenna’s questions:

 

“I keep seeing the word 'epistemology' thrown around on these boards, but I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be.

On what do progressives base our knowledge? How do we "know" what we know?

How does reason fit in? Or revelation? The Bible? Jesus? Personal experience?”

 

Maybe I missed it, but where did you tell us what a progressive epistemology would be.

Maybe I missed it, but where did you speak on what progressives base knowledge upon.

 

Oh yeah, I see where it is.

You took several of my words out of context and made some brilliant responses.

 

At least you got the apology right:

“I wish to apologize to you, McKenna, for the mockery that has been made of your questions”.

I can only assume that you only apologize for yourself. What would give you the gall darn audacity to apologize for someone else?

 

You know I really do believe in Santa Claus. For years I taught my children to believe in Santa Claus. I would go to great lengths to help them in their belief and to hide any evidence that would tend to raise questions about Santa. But in spite of all my efforts they grew up. I still believe. Recently my grandkids showed me why I believe. My daughter is doing the same things I did. I could not tell you where Santa is if you asked me. You could say he is “outside” somewhere. If you ever get the urge, tell me how you know that god of yours and how you know he is not Santa (well actually anyone in the group that you represent is welcome to do this).

[David]

David, you have a way with words. Thank you for expressing my thoughts and feeling so much better than I could. You were 100% on. As a progressive I don't believe in converting people to my way of thinking or believing. People become progressive through their own experiences and willingness to be not know everything *now* but be willing to take the time to learn over a lifetime. I'm summing up, but that seems to be a common thread for most people who were not born into a religiously liberal home. I'd rather see a few people be progressives honestly through their own journey than tons converted out of fear of divine retribution (which seems to be the most frequently used means of converting people into Christiainity -- believe what I do or go to hell).

Thank you for your kind words.

Hang in there.

Will talk to you when I get back.

[minsocal]

I keep seeing the word 'epistemology' thrown around on these boards, but I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be.

 

On what do progressives base our knowledge? How do we "know" what we know?

 

How does reason fit in? Or revelation? The Bible? Jesus? Personal experience?

 

...

 

Yesterday, davidk made an interesting observation in another thread. It has to do with the fact that we have to begin with a set of assumptions. Five years ago, when I joined a Progressive Church and discovered TCPC I found that, for the first time in my life, there exists a coherent set of assumptions that adequately express what I believe. I am referring here to the Eight Points.

 

In agreement with Point 1, the teachings of Jesus form an important part of what I think would be a Progressive epistomology. I do not intend to go through the Points in turn, they have been worked out over time and continue to evolve.

 

As to the now rather infamous "uncertainty principle", some have learned to tolerate significant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. In doing so, it has enriched their lives rather than left them in a state of perpetual angst. 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.

[McKenna]

You might want to go back and look carefully at his very first post. I'll quote it here for you. He started out with an attack. Which is why he is now added to my ignore list.

 

That's true, I forgot about that. But he has been attacked since then.

 

Sometimes I wish we had an active moderator. They could keep track of the attacks and make sure nobody stepped over the line. I think we all have in dealing with DavidK (including him and including myself). I really don't think it speaks well of our community and I'm finding it somewhat frustrating. I'm considering taking a break from this board not because of DavidK's existence but because of what his existence is doing to these boards! Can't we all just be respectful? And can't we try to be respectful even in the face of disrespect? (Again, I'm including myself in this...I know I am not innocent.)

 

Sorry to get my own thread off topic, but this is really bothering me. I hate when people are mad at each other...

 

If you want to discuss PROGRESSIVE thoughts then davidk has no business posting on the thread since he is not progressive and in his history of posting here has demonstrated not only his ignorance of progressive theology but also his derision for it. What is he going to add to the discussion? I would not trust his writings or understanding of philsophy seeing as how he has shown his lack of ability for basic logic in other areas, unless of course you can cooberate it with another source. It is not to say that everything that comes out his writing is crap but as he himself said once even a blind (animal?) will find a few acorns. (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

 

I just don't want to slam the door in his face...if he wants to engage in this discussion then he is allowed to...although I suppose David is right that he has not actually discussed progressive epistemology yet. I figured he was going somewhere with his history of philosophy, although it may just be to show that progressive epistemology is all wrong. In which case no, this isn't the right thread for it.

 

Look, I've gotten frustrated with him too (obviously), and I do still wonder why he's on this discussion board, since he seems to have no inclination to learn from us. But he is allowed in the debate section. And I agree that it is fruitless to discuss areas where we have different epistemologies, but this question is merely asking the definition of a progressive epistemology, so our different epistemologies shouldn't matter. DavidK, not being a progressive, can probably not offer much in the way of answers to the question, but he could ask further questions (as I have already done). Therefore I found it quite rude that the immediate response to him posting here was to tell him he was unwelcome.

 

I believe the blind animal was a pig digging for truffles but that could be way off

[McKenna]

Yesterday, davidk made an interesting observation in another thread. It has to do with the fact that we have to begin with a set of assumptions. Five years ago, when I joined a Progressive Church and discovered TCPC I found that, for the first time in my life, there exists a coherent set of assumptions that adequately express what I believe. I am referring here to the Eight Points.

 

Yes, I think you're right. I don't think there could be an epistemology that didn't make some assumptions, as when it comes down to it the only thing you can truly know philosophically is your own existence...at least, that's what I got out of my philosophy course!

 

In agreement with Point 1, the teachings of Jesus form an important part of what I think would be a Progressive epistomology. I do not intend to go through the Points in turn, they have been worked out over time and continue to evolve.

 

Isn't epistemology "how we know what we know"? So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?

 

As to the now rather infamous "uncertainty principle", some have learned to tolerate significant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. In doing so, it has enriched their lives rather than left them in a state of perpetual angst. 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.

 

I think you're right, and I think most progressives are in the same boat. I know I am. Perhaps progressive epistemology will always come with that caveat - uncertainty. I do not think that is a bad thing.

 

 

 

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own), and also because it leaves room for a great deal of uncertainty, since because we are finite we must know that our experiences can't encompass all of reality. On the other hand, I think it also has a positive side. I think it's honest...having some level of uncertainty, to me, is simply being honest about our state of finiteness (don't care if that's a word ), and basing our epistemologies off of our own personal experiences gives us the honesty of not necessarily relying on second-hand information (definitely not relying on it fully). Again, the downside is that the second-hand information could be way more accurate.

[McKenna]

Thank you for your kind words.

Hang in there.

Will talk to you when I get back.

 

Come back soon!

[minsocal]

Isn't epistemology "how we know what we know"? So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?

 

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.

[minsocal]

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own),

 

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?

[minsocal]

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.

 

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.

 

The " ... and justifcation" part is where I get twisted up. This seems to be where the dialogue gets controversial.

[October's Autumn]

DavidK, not being a progressive, can probably not offer much in the way of answers to the question, but he could ask further questions (as I have already done). Therefore I found it quite rude that the immediate response to him posting here was to tell him he was unwelcome.

 

 

That is because the first line in his first post was to attack. Which is why I told him he had no business being on this thread. His only purpose in asking questions is to point out how wrong we all are He has no interest in learning anything or in anyway being helpful to the discussion. Hence my stance that he stay off the thread. He has only succeeded in getting it off topic. You ask questions because you genuinely are interested in knowing what people think and how they came to the conclusion they did. He asks questions for quite different purposes.

[minsocal]

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own), and also because it leaves room for a great deal of uncertainty, since because we are finite we must know that our experiences can't encompass all of reality.

 

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.

[davidk]

I had hoped someone would have noticed my initial comment followed Autumn's?

 

"This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.)." - October's Autumn Apr 16 2008, 09:06 PM

 

"I find it very interesting that some can be so proud of their 'humbleness'. " -Davidk Apr 17 2008, 01:18 PM

 

I made a simple rebuttal about having to call attention to one's humility not being humility. Her remarks concluded flagrantly prejudicial and far from the truth.

-

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.

 

"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.

-

Epistemology is the central problem of our modern generation, because this generation looks at knowledge in a way that is radically different from the previous ones. My flying through the history of Philosophy is meant to touch its highlights in an effort for us all to see where we are struggling with this problem of knowledge in an intellectually honest way as my 'pea brain' can manage.

-

McKenna, you asked a very significant question. I'd like to respond to it specifically: "So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?"

 

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.

-

[minsocal]

Reason is very important to Progressives but we also recognize that human abililty to reason is limited to the information we have at hand. This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.).

 

The bible is filled with stories of Personal Experience which supercedes previous edicts. Think of Peter and keeping Kosher. It is his personal experience which changes the law for gentiles who are converting. Paul also writes of his personal experience on the road to Damascus which moves him from a persecuter to a convert. Much of the stories of the bible are about personal experiences with God. I think it is one of the most imporant pieces of being progressive. We find that our personal experience with God does not match up to Conservative idealogy and thus leave it.

 

Jesus is also key because Paul focuses on him when he fashions Christianity. He became so important that four or more poeple sit down to compile stories about him in writings that were passed around. They seek to tell the story of what Jesus did before it is lost. Jesus was by far a social reformer, a progressive Jew. He certainly did not seek to start a new religion only to return Judaism to its roots. His teaching fit in precisely with Jeremiah & Isaiah about what is truly important to God -- social justice. Other religions and the non-religious all seem to come to the same conclusions when it comes to the importance of social justice.

 

The Bible is given its due. Many progressives have recognized that it has been made into an idol and have sought to knock the false god off of its pedastal. We have demistified it by pointing out its contradictions and the reality of how it came to be. It still holds a special place for us because it contains so many important precepts. What we don't do is worship it as is done in Conservative and Fundamentalist congregations. We aren't afraid to actually look at it and understand it.

 

I hope that helps some.

 

davidk,

 

We all take risks when we state what we believe. The last sentence must also be considered. A hope ... a desire ... not a belief. Beliefs are subject to truth conditions (epistemology). Desires are fulfilled or they are not (a different condition of satisfaction).

[minsocal]

Reason is very important to Progressives but we also recognize that human abililty to reason is limited to the information we have at hand. This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.).

 

The bible is filled with stories of Personal Experience which supercedes previous edicts. Think of Peter and keeping Kosher. It is his personal experience which changes the law for gentiles who are converting. Paul also writes of his personal experience on the road to Damascus which moves him from a persecuter to a convert. Much of the stories of the bible are about personal experiences with God. I think it is one of the most imporant pieces of being progressive. We find that our personal experience with God does not match up to Conservative idealogy and thus leave it.

 

Jesus is also key because Paul focuses on him when he fashions Christianity. He became so important that four or more poeple sit down to compile stories about him in writings that were passed around. They seek to tell the story of what Jesus did before it is lost. Jesus was by far a social reformer, a progressive Jew. He certainly did not seek to start a new religion only to return Judaism to its roots. His teaching fit in precisely with Jeremiah & Isaiah about what is truly important to God -- social justice. Other religions and the non-religious all seem to come to the same conclusions when it comes to the importance of social justice.

 

The Bible is given its due. Many progressives have recognized that it has been made into an idol and have sought to knock the false god off of its pedastal. We have demistified it by pointing out its contradictions and the reality of how it came to be. It still holds a special place for us because it contains so many important precepts. What we don't do is worship it as is done in Conservative and Fundamentalist congregations. We aren't afraid to actually look at it and understand it.

 

I hope that helps some.

 

I really like this post, and hope it can be given its due.

 

Human reason is limited. (but not eliminated)

 

The Bible is full of the personal experiences of others. (a valuable source of knowledge)

 

Jesus was a social reformer and a progressive Jew.

 

His teachings fit with Jerhemiah and Isaiah (and others). (the prophetic tradition)

 

The prophets were passionate about justice.

 

The Bible is given its due. (and why not?)

 

All of this seems to fit with the Eight Points very well.

[October's Autumn]

Thanks, minsocal

[minsocal]

Thanks, minsocal

 

You're welcome. I have a similar passion.

[minsocal]

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

[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]

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

 

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?

 

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").

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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.

[minsocal]

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.