Progressive Epistemology

[soma]

For the progressive theologian, it is quite impossible to think of real propositional revelation. Argument over details abound to no avail. Progressive doctrine cannot have any certainty of the relationship of the subject and the object. Therefore, in the area of knowing, the liberal/progressive relies on a mystical religious thing that only offers a leap out of reality with no way to test it objectively; the experience.

 

Progressive theologians are open to the possibility of absolute truth with a position of deep humility regarding the possibility of absolute knowing. Conservatives need to become more intellectually humble - desiring truth, seeking for truth, all the while accepting the fact that we may never fully know the Absolute. They think they are God dictating the truth when they possible can't know the Infinite God we worship. Their actions speak louder than their words on this.

[davidk]

Progressive theologians are open to the possibility of absolute truth with a position of deep humility regarding the possibility of absolute knowing. Conservatives need to become more intellectually humble - desiring truth, seeking for truth, all the while accepting the fact that we may never fully know the Absolute. They think they are God dictating the truth when they possible can't know the Infinite God we worship. Their actions speak louder than their words on this.

Interesting. If this speaks of those who confess to believe in orthodox biblical Christianity as being conservative then I believe your post is making poorly reasoned assumptions about their philosophy.

The orthodox Christian philosophy begins with the existent personal-infinite God and absolute truth and, again, it is not by any means a claim of having absolute infinite knowledge of anything. It does claim, because absolute truths and the infinite-personal God do actually exist, we can know somethings.

---

By saying progesssive thought is "open to the possiblity of absolute truth" reveals progressive thought does not yet believe it.

Under the weight of the assumably definitive position of there being no possibility to know the infinite God, since no evidence can be allowed, progressives have the impossible task to know or explain who or what they are worshipping.

[minsocal]

There simply is no Progressive Dogma concerning absolute truth.

 

Before searching for something called "truth" we need the courage to ask certain questions dogma prohibits. Epistomology is "how we go about" finding truth. Ontology answers the question "what is it?" Causation answers the question "what does it do"? Epistomology and ontology are often confused. There is no ontology of how we go about finding truth. There is no ontology of epistomology.

 

To ask novel questions that challenge dogma is a form of epistomology. In dogma, "truth" is already "given" by an institution called the church, and is deeply rooted in the past and not the future. This is what many Progressives object to ... and so on.

[davidk]

There simply is no Progressive Dogma concerning absolute truth.

 

Before searching for something called "truth" we need the courage to ask certain questions dogma prohibits. Epistomology is "how we go about" finding truth. Ontology answers the question "what is it?" Causation answers the question "what does it do"? Epistomology and ontology are often confused. There is no ontology of how we go about finding truth. There is no ontology of epistomology.

 

To ask novel questions that challenge dogma is a form of epistomology. In dogma, "truth" is already "given" by an institution called the church, and is deeply rooted in the past and not the future. This is what many Progressives object to ... and so on.

It is agreed that progressive dogma does noes not concern itself with absolutes. To ask questions should be expected, but that progressives would rather get muddled up in endless debate over all the little particulars, seems to be their forte. It is only asked for them to understand that there needs to be an absolute for the particulars to have any meaning.

 

Absolutes are characterized by their perfection and the lack of a particular.

 

I think ontology (AKA: the first philosophy) tries to answer the question of existence, the "why" rather than the "what", while it is epistemology that tries to answer the question of knowledge. That is, how we know that we know.

[minsocal]

It is agreed that progressive dogma does noes not concern itself with absolutes. To ask questions should be expected, but that progressives would rather get muddled up in endless debate over all the little particulars, seems to be their forte. It is only asked for them to understand that there needs to be an absolute for the particulars to have any meaning.

 

Absolutes are characterized by their perfection and the lack of a particular.

 

I think ontology (AKA: the first philosophy) tries to answer the question of existence, the "why" rather than the "what", while it is epistemology that tries to answer the question of knowledge. That is, how we know that we know.

 

I SAID THERE IS NO PROGRESSIVE DOGMA! Do you have a comprehension problem?

[David]

Since this is one of my favorite subjects I’m glad to see that the discussion continued in my absence. Let me take a swing at this.

 

Epistemology can not be learned on this message board. Neither can theology. Neither can psychology. This is a very poor place to learn anything. Having said this Minsocal has made an attempt to help us learn about epistemology. Minsocal appears to recognize the difference between belief and knowledge, the difference between foundationalism and coherentism and most importantly the problems associated with skepticism.

 

The child’s favorite game is to always respond with “well how do you know that?” to every answer in an endless chain of questions that lead nowhere. This is called the “epistemic regress problem”. The issue is how and where this infinite chain stops.

 

The foundationalist would argue that every belief is based upon a prior belief through that chain of questions until one reaches the “foundational” beliefs. A version of this is that the Bible is true is based upon a chain of beliefs that eventually starts with a god who is able to dictate in human words. Foundationalists disagree about which scripture is god’s scripture but they agree on the foundationalist thinking and that foundational understanding is based upon foundational beliefs. The goal of knowledge is to search for those foundational beliefs. Justification for beliefs is based upon foundational beliefs.

 

Those that would argue for coherentism stop that endless line of questions before it really gets started. Justification for beliefs here depends upon how one belief and other beliefs come together in a “unit of coherence”. There is a fundamental interrelationship between beliefs that signals the truth of any one belief. If one belief does not “cohere” to the other beliefs it can not be justified. The “foundation” is that coherence that which stops the endless questions, not a set of foundational beliefs.

 

A third way of understanding is possible that does not allow the questions at all. It is the direct understanding that is not dependent upon other beliefs or coherence (this is not to say that this third way necessarily contradicts other beliefs or coherence). The chain starts and stops with the basis of understanding within experience. More needs to be said but basically all attempts to make that basis of understanding external to our psyche fail. It all is based upon some form of experience. “I perceive something”, “I intuit something”, etc. The scientific hypothesis is the classic example. It all starts with the creation of the hypothesis. But that creative event is foundationally based upon an interior process, not from the “external”. Scientific epistemology is based upon experience. The scientific method wants to be “objective” but even the method is now being challenged by science as being unable to be divorced from experience.

 

DavidK suggests that “I'd like to add that all human viewpoints lean toward the subjective. Only God can provide the real objective view. ” I have attempted before to suggest to DavidK that what he calls epistemology is really theological doctrine. Much of epistemology is concerned about the difference between the “subjective” and the “objective” but to state that “only God can provide the objective” is a theological doctrine. It is not epistemology.

 

Below DavidK’s theological doctrine is an epistemology. That epistemology is based upon revelation from a source outside of one’s self as the way Truth is known. Furthermore, it is suggested that the way one knows the Truth is by reading a book. We have seen before how DavidK looks to the Bible to know that the world is not flat.

 

This is not an epistemology that is reflected by Jesus. If Jesus reflected this epistemology he would have written a book for us or at least dictated one for us. One can suggest that Jesus knew via revelation but not a kind of revelation that was meant to be written down. Jesus never gave any indication that he wanted to have a written record of his revelation that he experienced.

 

Those that suggest that we know by receiving revelation via direct dictation and/or by reading a revelation of direct dictation from an “outside source” have much company. Besides the Bible there is the Holy Qur’an, the Book of Morman, or Pat Robertson’s latest book (note the Bible is a complicated example because it is based upon multiple sources all of which are claimed to be controlled by an external source). I would suggest that this kind of epistemology is suspect and regardless of whether one agrees with the content of the revelation the epistemology itself can not be accepted. This kind of epistemology is the basis of a long and continued terrible history of religion. I would suggest that "progressive epistemology can provide an alternative.

 

I would suggest that the epistemology reflected by Jesus rejects the “revelation via dictation” epistemology but instead Jesus models “progressive epistemology”. He seems to model the fact that the attempt to write down specific details of the relationship with the Divine in fact takes one further away from the Divine rather than closer to the Divine. Jesus did not go around providing direct dictation from an external god. And he did not see himself as the source of direct dictation for his followers.

 

I would suggest that Jesus reflects an epistemology based upon intuition and not revelation. Revelation is different than intuition. Revelation implies that there is little or no subject in the process, just an objective external source. Intuition can agree that there is the “objective” but it is always seen through the “subjective”. I think this is the beginning point for progressive epistemology.

 

Minsocal provides the interesting discussion about the “subjective and the objective’” when he says “"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."

 

Minsocal goes on to begin an important discussion on skepticism. Skepticism has been the basis of post-modernism and has dominated the academic world for some time. The position is taken that we can not “verify” what is occurring in someone else’s consciousness and therefore there is no possible “verification” of anything “objective” between persons. In addition, skepticism suggests that each person “experiences” an “external” physical world through the senses and since the senses can not be reliable there is no possibility of an “objective” experience of the physical world.

 

I would suggest that skepticism is the basis for the great fundamentalist fear. We hear that fear with DavidK’s suggestion that all things “human” are “subjective” and by implication subject to skepticism. The fundamentalist fear is based upon the very deep need for objectivity that only an external, supernatural god can provide. If there is not such a god, one has to be created.

 

In this sense much of the current discussion in our world is between fundamentalists and post-moderns who have very different doctrines but who share a basic acceptance of skepticism. I think the important challenge for Progressive Christianity is to respond to skepticism and provide an important alternative to the person who says there is only one TRUTH (the fundamentalist) and to the person who says there is no TRUTH (the post modernist).

 

But back to Minsocal. 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? Was it Alan Watts that suggested that when you come to a question like this which seems to have no answer you best think about the question itself and find the hidden assumptions that may be causing the problem? Notice in this question that the only word that seems to be “objective” is the word “we”. We assume that we know what “we” means without question.

 

In epistemology everything went in the wrong direction with Descartes. Descartes makes the proposition that “I think therefore I am”. Again the problem is with the assumptions. The word here that is implied to be “objective” is the word “I”. I assume that I know what “I” means without question.

 

One of the best persons I have found (besides Alan Watts) to talk about a “progressive epistemology” is Ken Wilbur. He suggests that the “we” is not a “super I”. The “we” is much more than the sum of the parts. When we “come together” we do understand each other and the “nexus of we” really exists. He suggests that “the world of intersubjectivity changes both the subject and the object” and brings forth “worlds that can be seen and felt neither as merely subjective (and hence merely relative) nor merely objective (and hence merely universal). “

 

I would suggest that one example of the “world of intersubjectivity that changes both the subject and the object” is the concert world. That context brings forth worlds that can be experienced as neither merely subjective nor merely objective and the context is affected by the people producing the sound as well as those listening to the sound. I think many forms of worship are similar and in fact many forms of social justice reflect the wholes that are much more than the sum of the parts. Our days are filled with worlds of intersubjectivity at even the most mundane levels.

 

“How we know” is not objectively explained in this “world of intersubjectivity” nor is “what we know” objectively explained in this world. The division between “how” and “what” is based upon the assumption of the separation between subject and object with the hope that something can be “objectively” explained. The question itself seems to fade away when we touch that whole that is more than the sum of the parts. But the knowing remains. And the knowing is not so subjective that it loses touch with objectivity nor is the knowing so objective that it loses touch with subjectivity. The division between subject/object is overcome and the knowing remains.

 

The ego remains as a “way of knowing” as well as an object to look at as “how we know”. In this world skepticism is healthy and useful. In this world separating the subject from the object can be helpful. But the “we” is more than the sum of egos and the “world of intersubjectivity” provides a different epistemology than the world of egos.

 

Can this be explained any more? Well yes and no. Wilbur could explain it better but then again Wilbur can never explain it. Explaining this epistemology is hindered by our problem with language which works against any reality that is not directly associated with a word. This combined with skepticism shows why the world of words is most important to fundamentalists and post moderns. Progressive Christianity needs to supply an alternative. Many have said before me that the way we experience the Divine is through events not dominated by language (music, art, etc). I think that worship should be dominated by non language events. However, I think that Wilbur and others are beginning to help with the language problem. We can understand the “nexus of we” if we can talk more about it. Jesus seemed to understand the limitations of words while still wanting to talk about it.

 

I think that epistemology is more important to talk about than theology. I do not think we can talk about theology unless we at least sense a common epistemology. I see no value in talking theology with fundamentalists unless it is done to show the folly of the fundamentalist. I actually have a similar problem with post modernists which is the main reason I stopped my PhD program at Berkeley. Post moderns see no value in talking about the larger questions because there is no larger Truth. Our egos are our epistemological prisons. Progressive Christianity may be more challenged by post modernism than by fundamentalism.

[minsocal]

David,

 

Welcome back to the discussion. Later this evening I will read your post again. I have some comments I want to work out in advance. I agree with you regarding post modernism. My understanding is that it is already on the decline in some academic circles. I've seen hints of post modernism from a few speakers at my church, but it was not the version of post modernism I expected. It is possibly the difference between post modernism in its original form and the later radicalized version.

 

I have long maintained that Progressive Christians prefer coherentism over foundationalism. The subject came up in one of my Adult Ed classes at my church. After I explained the difference, I asked for a show of hands. Out of forty members, 2 favored foundationalism, 11 favored a mix of both, 26 favored coherentism, and George the resident skeptic refused to vote. George, by the way, is a dear friend.

 

Meanwhile, I have been delving into Kant and "the power of judgment". I'm wondering if "the unit of coherence" is related to Kant's "judgment"? If so, when is a judgment "satisfied"? In my view a judgment does not have the same conditions of "satisfaction" as a belief. In other words, a judgment is not subject to truth conditions like a belief (true or false). Whitehead mantains that the conditions of "satisfaction" for a judgement are "correct", "incorrect", and "suspended". The condition of "suspended" interests me.

 

I sense a shift in my views on the horizon.

 

Minsocal

[David]

David,

 

Welcome back to the discussion. Later this evening I will read your post again. I have some comments I want to work out in advance. I agree with you regarding post modernism. My understanding is that it is already on the decline in some academic circles. I've seen hints of post modernism from a few speakers at my church, but it was not the version of post modernism I expected. It is possibly the difference between post modernism in its original form and the later radicalized version.

 

I have long maintained that Progressive Christians prefer coherentism over foundationalism. The subject came up in one of my Adult Ed classes at my church. After I explained the difference, I asked for a show of hands. Out of forty members, 2 favored foundationalism, 11 favored a mix of both, 26 favored coherentism, and George the resident skeptic refused to vote. George, by the way, is a dear friend.

 

Meanwhile, I have been delving into Kant and "the power of judgment". I'm wondering if "the unit of coherence" is related to Kant's "judgment"? If so, when is a judgment "satisfied"? In my view a judgment does not have the same conditions of "satisfaction" as a belief. In other words, a judgment is not subject to truth conditions like a belief (true or false). Whitehead mantains that the conditions of "satisfaction" for a judgement are "correct", "incorrect", and "suspended". The condition of "suspended" interests me.

 

I sense a shift in my views on the horizon.

 

Minsocal

 

I look forward to your thoughts. You know much more about Whitehead than I but I understand that Whitehead suggests that between the subject and object there is a "superject" which is a "coin with two sides" and serves as the meeting ground of the subject and the object. The dynamic of this meeting ground evidently is similar to what Wilbur is trying to lift up as "intersubjectivity". The dynamic seems to be a two way street and is in fact dynamic. I am not too clear on Whitehead's concept of satisfaction except that it seems to happen within that dynamic as though it was some kind of balance between the subjective and the objective. For my purposes this just all goes to support that the whole is more than the sum of the parts and that knowing takes place not in the separation of subject from object but in their "meeting ground".

[minsocal]

I look forward to your thoughts. You know much more about Whitehead than I but I understand that Whitehead suggests that between the subject and object there is a "superject" which is a "coin with two sides" and serves as the meeting ground of the subject and the object. The dynamic of this meeting ground evidently is similar to what Wilbur is trying to lift up as "intersubjectivity". The dynamic seems to be a two way street and is in fact dynamic. I am not too clear on Whitehead's concept of satisfaction except that it seems to happen within that dynamic as though it was some kind of balance between the subjective and the objective. For my purposes this just all goes to support that the whole is more than the sum of the parts and that knowing takes place not in the separation of subject from object but in their "meeting ground".

 

As far as I can tell, Whitehead's view of intersubjectivity is very close to Husserl and his student Edith Klien. These views are based on the role of empathy. Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another person's state of mind or emotion. Empathy allows us to treat another body not as just another object but as another subject. Whitehead agrees, and bases much of his theory on this foundation. This sums up Husserl fairly well:

 

"Through intersubjectivity one thus experiences oneself as different from the Other and at the same time available to him. This is a key component in the constitution of one's own existence as objectively existing subjectivity. What has already been implied is how intersubjectivity also helps in the constitution of objectivity: In the experience of the world as available not only to oneself, but also to the Other, the constitution of the world and its objects as objectively existing objects is constituted. This also includes the existence of Others, although they are constituted, much in the way oneself is constituted, as objectively existing subjectivities." (My emphasis added)

 

This is roughly what Whitehead means when he says that the self is a subject-superject. I argue that this is valid, but not yet complete. It is a major piece of how the self forms, but that is another story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

 

My own view is a hybrid product of a number of theories. John Searle, in agreement with Husserl, takes another step and maintains that this capacity is innate (archetypal). His view is a bit different in that he is talking about "the unique category of other people" and does not mention empathy. Searle is talking about one or more persons. A group speaking "as one" is roughly the same as another person. What intersubjectivity does is take Kant's formula of deterministic bottom-up and indeterminate top-down cognitive processing and extends it into the world of relations within the special "category of other people".

 

One aspect, often overlooked and a key to understanding Whitehead, is the importance of emotion and other non-verbal communication. The various emotions function to pass "information" to others and to receive an interpret the same from others. This is consistent with Darwin and the theory of evolution. It is also consistent with what we know about the structure and function of the human brain. That is why Whitehead made it the core of his philosophy of "organism". Here, Whitehead almost becomes Jung. The physical body, the origin of primary emotions, is the "historical route" of the physical being. What is called "bottom-up" processing begins in the body (including the brain) and then joins with the received "feelings" of others. The "two sides of the same coin" with, as Whitehead puts it, the physical pole and the mental pole which registers the communication received from others. (If that sounds a bit like Yin and Yang, it should). Searle clears the matter up a bit by introducing what he calls the "direction of fit". Some emotions are in response to the actions of others. Some are in response to the feedback we recieve from others regarding our own actions (or the anticipated response in either case). Unless we are super-actors or suppress all emotion we "know" ourselves and others through the emotions. The emotions precede and support rationality.

 

This throws a wrench into the Western model of rationality. Intersubjectivity makes us co-rational beings. In addition, it is hard to tell where cognition leaves off and emotion begins. Is it the case that rationality should be the slave of the passions, as Hume claims? Or should we follow Kant and the "the power of judgment"? I say follow Kant (with a few exceptions). The power of judgment, as it includes "bottom-up" processing and "top-down" processing looks like a good place to begin.

[davidk]

I SAID THERE IS NO PROGRESSIVE DOGMA! Do you have a comprehension problem?

Perhaps, but when Progressives set forth such things as the 8 points, it is laying out religious tenets, something that can be held as their established opinion of and stated as theological and religious tenets or doctrines- dogma.

However, I'll use whatever word you prefer if the word 'dogma' incites too much nervousness in you. What would be more acceptable to you, opinion, tenet, philosophy? You wanna address the topic?

Epistemology means the theory of the method or grounds of knowledge- the theory of knowledge, or how we know.

--

Welcome back, I see I still provide grist for your mill.

Just to get things started back on the right note, let me applaud your confession. You have written that Progressive epistemology is being hindered by language (the inability to communicate ). And your solution that we will understand "if we can talk more about it"and Jesus insisted on talking to people (communicating), parallels fundamental Christian epistemology which is simply: there must be something spoken if we are to know anything.

Bravo!

However, the dilemma for progressives: Is there anyone there to speak?

This is why Christians have no problem with epistemology, there is someone there to speak- the infinte, personal God.

[minsocal]

Perhaps, but when Progressives set forth such things as the 8 points, it is laying out religious tenets, something that can be held as their established opinion of and stated as theological and religious tenets or doctrines- dogma.

However, I'll use whatever word you prefer if the word 'dogma' incites too much nervousness in you. What would be more acceptable to you, opinion, tenet, philosophy?

--

 

Welcome back, I see I still provide some grist for your mill.

Just to get things started back on the right note, let me applaud your confession. You have written that Progressive epistemology is being hindered by language (the inability to communicate ). And your solution that we will understand "if we can talk more about it" and Jesus insisting on talking (communicating) with people, parallels fundamental Christian epistemology which is simply: there must be something spoken if we are to know anything.

Bravo!

However, the dilemma for progressives: Is there anyone there to speak?

This is why Christians have no problem with epistemology, there is someone there to speak- the infinte, personal God.

 

No comment on my part. The subject of the thread is progressive epistemology. I have no intention of defending it, I merely wish to discuss what it is. That I take to have been the spirit of the thread in the first place. If you wish to challenge progressive epistemology, start a thread and find out if anyone cares to respond.

[minsocal]

To repeat, the standard analysis of epistemology has three components:

 

1. The belief condition, a knower must be psychologically related somehow to a proposition. Many hold that only beliefs provide the needed psychological relation. Knowers must psychologically posses their knowledge. Some insist that merely assenting to a proposition is sufficient for knowing. I do not think this this could be the case. This sounds more like an assumption that has become automatic. In other words what might have been a belief at Time 1 is now applied automatically without checking to see if it currently "fits" our belief system at Time 2, regardless of whether our belief system is based on foundationalism or coherentism. This is what I call dogmatism. The Eight Points avoid this problem because they are always open to dialogue and revision, as anyone who uses the message board already knows (or should know). Criticism of the Eight Points requires prior knowledge concerning how and why they came into being. In part, they are a response to criticisms by conservatives that Progressive "do not know who they are". When a conservative claims that the Eight Points are some form of "dogma" they face the possibilty of being viewed as hypocritical. The risk is theirs, not ours.

 

2. The truth condition, a belief is held by one person. It is what is true for that person. The responsibilty of a belief is that it should match the "real" world. The basic capacities of the mind are limited, so we often place out trust in experts who are authorities in specialized areas of inquiry. Thus, in some sense, the truth condition "comes with the evidence". I am not about to spend the time to learn quantum mechanics, but I am willing to sort through the issues experts face and decide for myself who makes sense and who does not. This leads to the question of what is truth? It is not a matter of finding out, but what truth consists in. There are three approaches to this question: a. Truth as a correspondence between a proposition and an actual situation, b. Truth as coherence, the interconnectedness of a proposition with a system of propositions, c. Truth as pragmatic cognitive value, the usefuleness of a proposition in attaining certain intellectual goals. In any case, the concept of knowledge seems to have a factual requirement.

 

3. The justification condition. Knowledge is more than true belief. The satisfaction of its belief condition must be appropriately related to the satisfaction of its truth condition. One view is that we must have an adequate indication that a known proposition is true. This could be in the form of evidence, which is the traditional view. The debate about justification takes several forms: a. Justification is a matter of refraining from accepting a proposition that is false. This is a matter of following certain a certain set of epistemis rules. b. It is a matter of maximizing truth and minimizing falsity. There must be no overriding reason not to accept a belief. c. And so on ... In any case, these are normative construals of justification and not all epistemologists take a normative approach.

 

Some time ago I began to ponder the question as whether knowledge is the utimate end state of cognition. Kant's answer is no, it is not. As I look at all of the options above, I am now in a position such that I need to make a judgment concerning how I treat the optional propositions found in epistemology. That judgment does not come from without, it my responsibity. To use John Searle's terminiology, a judgment has a "null" direction of fit. It is within my mind and for my mind that the judgment is made. This judgment is much more than knowledge. It includes my desires, my beliefs, my intuitions, my goals, my emotions ... every cognitive component that exists. Most of all it includes volition. As I stated elsewhere, this judgment may be correct or incorrect. If it is dogmatic (fixed), I am left with the possibility of error and must live with it. If the judgment is correct, fine. But the third condition is, with prudence, I may suspend the judgment until such time as I "feel" its satisfaction (Whitehead).

 

Many here know that I have a fondness for Jung's theories. Kant is a primary source for much of what Jung developed. Jung's emphasis is on psychological values which rest on a bedrock of emotion. As I stated before, this is also the approach taken by Whitehead. The two theories share Kant as a major source. The upshot of all this is that to be fully human is more than the acquisition of knowledge. God is more than mere knowledge.

 

This is why I prefer Progressive Christianity. Knowldege is certainly important, but it is only part of a larger system in which other problems are considered. My desire to follow the teachings of Jesus has nothing to do with knowledge. We are equally served overall by paying attention to our emotions such as love and compassion. Knowledge is a useful tool as I act with compassion and consider how to best go about following Jesus, not the other way around. So long as my desire is to follow the teachings of Jesus, I will continue to call myself Christian. Period. Conservative can take whatever path they desire. There are no necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as a Christian. One seeks or one follows? No, not quite. I seek to follow.

[minsocal]

For those who have read my recent posts, I would like to present a few more of my own views.

 

First of all, the teachings of Jesus. As I noted earlier, it seems that "the category of other people" is indeed special. This is at the core of what Jesus taught and the actions he took. Other people are not objects to be taxed by the state and the church into poverty. In Jesus' time it was a common to tax the poor to such an extent that they would eventually loose all their property (and guess who ended up owning it). If, as John Searle claims, this special treatment of other people is innate, we have huge problem. The traditional view of nature being corrupt faces a serious challenge. From here it is a small step to the notion of "the God within".

 

Put another way, as you read what Jesus taught and add consider the actions of Jesus, there has to be something more here than mere knowledge. It is the action component. Knowledge is not a sufficient cause for action. I must also desire to act as Jesus taught us, partly by example. David is right to point to intersubjectivity as a key component. What we have, however limited, concerning all of the life of Jesus allows us to enter into an intersubjective dialogue with Jesus (albeit in our imagination). This, of course, is if we are willing to look at what what is written and "do the work" of forming coherent judgments based on our own beliefs and desires, treating Jesus as another subject and not one spouting doctrine. In short, niether God nor Jesus are "objects".

[davidk]

No comment on my part. The subject of the thread is progressive epistemology. I have no intention of defending it, I merely wish to discuss what it is. That I take to have been the spirit of the thread in the first place. If you wish to challenge progressive epistemology, start a thread and find out if anyone cares to respond.

Perhaps comprehension is not just my problem. To discuss is to examine or investigate by reasoning or argument by presenting various sides, an exchange of views, debate.

 

The thread is entitled "replying to Progressive Epistemology". I am replying.

[minsocal]

Perhaps comprehension is not just my problem. To discuss is to examine or investigate by reasoning or argument by presenting various sides, an exchange of views, debate.

 

The thread is entitled "replying to Progressive Epistemology". I am replying.

 

What are the answers to these 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.

 

There is no pre-existing definition of a Progressive epistemology. It is a work in progress. That is the task we are exploring here in this thread.

 

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

 

Progressive Christianity draws upon a multitude of sources. Judgment concerning the value of these sources is up to the individual. The a priori judgments of others as to what is "Christian" and what is not is suspended so that further inquiry continues.

 

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

 

They all fit in. We can use any source and all of our cognitive capacities. Drawing them together into some coherent fashion is a coninuous task requiring an "openness" to all of the above. My recent comments have been moving towards the answer to the question of rationality. I have also suggested that personal experience, including our own emotions are part of the whole picture. David has raised the very important point about intersubjectivity. I find this lacking in your epistemology which seems stuck on the primacy of the proposition (which, by the way, someone else had to explain the role of propositions).

 

Answering these questions implies prior knowledge and experience within Progressive Christianity. It is not a critique of its situatedness within a larger Christian community.

 

So what are your views regarding intersubjectivity?

 

We already know your views regarding the Bible, so forget that script.

 

Since rationality involves desires, how does knowledge relate to rationality? If rationality involves desires, then conation (volition) must be considered. By definition, conation links knowledge to affect. Hmmmm .... seems to me that Process theology moves down that road.

 

And finally, to "know that absolute truth exists" is trivial. What are the absolute truths? How well has your epistemology served you?

[minsocal]

Perhaps, but when Progressives set forth such things as the 8 points, it is laying out religious tenets, something that can be held as their established opinion of and stated as theological and religious tenets or doctrines- dogma.

However, I'll use whatever word you prefer if the word 'dogma' incites too much nervousness in you. What would be more acceptable to you, opinion, tenet, philosophy? You wanna address the topic?

Epistemology means the theory of the method or grounds of knowledge- the theory of knowledge, or how we know.

[/font][/size]

 

I have answered this in another post, but thought I would prepare a version just for you. Rather than my "nervousness", I will address your need for specialness. Just playing by your rules, fun huh?

 

As I noted, the Eight Points developed, in part out of Conservative criticism that Progressive Christians "do not know who they are." The Eight Points have evolved over time based on input from a large number of people. It is a democratic process. Conservatives who are then critical of Progressives when they state who they are ... are (insert a good word here). It's called "bait and switch". Conservatives seem to love this tactic, I do not know why.

 

1. Progressive Christianity is more democratic than Conservative versions. Progressive Christianity developed out of a larger movement towards more democratic principles. Those democratic principles are consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Score one for Progressive Christianity, (well, maybe more than one point based on relative values).

 

Those who know the origins and goals of Progressive Christianity are more expert on the subject than those who do not. Read the history and get back to us when you have. The odd thing about Conservatives is that that they seem to think they are experts in all fields. I see the same thing all the time on political message boards. Its like straight people telling gays what homosexuality is all about. Can't get a word in no matter what.

 

2. Progressive Christians have the right to speak for themselves. Conservatives want to restrict that right (with THEIR dogma). Even if there were a Progressive dogma, the issue is moot. The history of Progressive Christianity is an escape from the struggles over dogma that had torn countries apart. Again, its a matter of knowing your history. It is also a matter of desiring to know that history. Lesson learned, Progressive Christians are less concerned about imposing their values on others. The value is in not dividing people, but in uniting them (sound familiar?). Oh my, oh my, did I just say that there is a greater value in improving the quality of peoples lives than the mere quest for knowledge? Well slap my hand.

 

Progressive Christians care more about action than theology. Jesus had no theology. Paul did most of the work on the theological side.

 

3. As a Progressive Christian, I desire to follow the teachings of Jesus. I am not a Paulinian. If I were, that is what I would call myself. In defense of Paul, Progressive Christians are capable of looking at what Paul supposedly wrote and determine that some is not authentic. Conservatives would not make the effort. After the effort, Paul is more consistent with Jesus than most would think. Score another one for PC's.

 

If you are an absolutist thinker, you just won't get the concept of relative value.

 

4. Read my recent posts and figure it out for yourself. I'll be more explict on the subject soon.

 

To be continued.

[minsocal]

The continuation for davidk,

 

We now turn to "propositional content". Rationality is more than knowledge. It must include desires. That is the Classical Model of Rationality. So let's have a way of stating propositions. Here is how it works:

 

I believe that God exists: Bel(that God exists). But, I could also say that I desire that God exists: Des(that God exists). The failure of the clasical model is here. I can also have an intuitive awareness of God: Int(that God exists). Jung took it one more step. I can say that I feel that God exists: Fel(that God exists). Feeling theory derives from emotions, so I can say that my emotions tell me that God exists: Emo(that God exists). If I am an Empricist, I will state that I sense that God exists: Sen(that God exists). In all cases, the central notion is (that God exists). These are all propositions. Thinking and feeling, in Jung's model, are rational. But feeling rests on the bedrock of emotion. Thinking rests on the bedrock of intuition. The later is derived from Kant. The former is found in Whitehead.

 

Kant's notion of the judgment requires that all of these form a coherent unity, "the judgment". The "proposition" subserves the "judgment". Belief (truth or falsity) subserves judgment (correct, incorrect, or suspended). Emotion and intuition have no "conditions of satisfaction", as the conditions are intrinsic to what they are.

 

5. Progressive Christianity seeks to move beyond belief conditions and into the judgment conditions. (Some of those familiar with the Old Testament might already sense where I'm going with this).

 

To be continued (with a hint):

 

"1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: 2 for attaining wisdom and discipline; for understanding words of insight; 3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair; 4 for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young-- 5 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance-- 6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise."

[minsocal]

The continuation, for davidk,

 

"1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: 2 for attaining wisdom and discipline; for understanding words of insight; 3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair; 4 for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young-- 5 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance-- 6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise."

 

6. What we have here is not knowledge gained for the sake of knowledge. It is wisdom, or applied knowledge. Take "wisdom" to mean Kant's "judgment". Here, we collide again with the supposed defects of "nature". Antonio Damasio, writing about the structure and function of the brain, sees this "wisdom" inherent in the very evolution of the brain. Jung, said the same thing (that is the real theory of archetypes). Once again, we are back to the "God within".

 

At this point, we have to face the old tradition squarely.

 

Descartes was wrong. There is no mind-body dualism.

 

Plato was wrong (as was Whitehead). There are no "eternal objects" contained in God. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Wisdom is "muti-intersubjective". My objective background as a person, inherited from the collective influence of my DNA (Jung's collective unconscious) meets with "the category of other people". This interaction is "progress". Sorry davidk, the "rules" are in the developing process of wisdom handed down and wisdom created yet again.

[minsocal]

the continuation for davidk,

 

I said that Plato and Whitehead were wrong in that God is not an infinite source of Eternal Objects. I doubt whether God envisioned a form called a "car", a "computer" ... etc. Furthermore, a "car" or a "computer" are only inventions allowed by the the creativity we were endowed with by God. In the end, computers and cars are hardly spiritual. Phobias are a good example of what I am talking about. God wants us to exist. We fear the dark cave, crawling objects called snakes, and so on. God is continuous with evolution. When the Bible says that God created the world in X number of days, it means that we live in a world of temporality, otherwise expressed as evolution. Many conservatives miss this point. This is another way of saying that we we live in a world of "progress", hence the term "Progressive". Pretty simple. "Cars" and "computers" are new categories of progress that are indeterminant in their ultimate value. Thus we enter into the issues of "global warming" (destroying God's creation), etc.

 

7. Knowledge is not sufficient to determine ultimate values. The debate shifts from knowledge to value. The question now is not one of absolute truth, but of absolute value. Bowing to tradition, we will call that justice. Progressive Christians are concerned about the rationality of justice. Jesus is very clear on this point. If I have to say more, I am wasting my time. One can go off on any tangent, but that (davidk) cannot be Christian.

[minsocal]

the continuation for davidk, [a timed out edit, sorry]

 

I said that Plato and Whitehead were wrong in that God is not an infinite source of Eternal Objects. I doubt whether God envisioned a form called a "car", a "computer" ... etc. Furthermore, a "car" or a "computer" are only inventions allowed by the the creativity we were endowed with by God. In the end, computers and cars are hardly spiritual. Phobias are a good example of what I am talking about. God wants us to exist. We fear the dark cave, crawling objects called snakes, and so on. God is continuous with evolution. When the Bible says that God created the world in X number of days, it means that we live in a world of temporality, otherwise expressed as evolution. Many conservatives miss this point. This is another way of saying that we we live in a world of "progress", hence the term "Progressive". Pretty simple. "Cars" and "computers" are new categories of progress that are indeterminant in their ultimate value. Thus we enter into the issues of "global warming" (destroying God's creation), etc.

 

7. Knowledge is not sufficient to determine ultimate values. The debate shifts from knowledge to value. The question now is not one of absolute truth, but of absolute value. Bowing to tradition, we will call that justice. Progressive Christians are concerned about the rationality of justice. Jesus is very clear on this point. If I have to say more, I am wasting my time. One can go off on any tangent, but that (davidk) cannot be Christian.

 

Here, I will draw an example from my own experience. Years ago, I worked for a company that hired a company to provide cafeteria services. One of their employees became the object of scorn. She was not good looking, she had limited skills interacting with customers. Her boss made it known that he would fire her if complaints continued. Well, one day she did not show up for work. Her boss said "that's it". Well, the news followed. She had been taking care of her grandchildren and had visited an icecream parlor with them just a block from where I lived. On the way back home, a car ran a red light and proceeded in the direction of her grandchildren. She threw herself into the path of the vehicle to shield her grandchildren. They survived, she did not.

 

I agree with Searle (2001). Any rational being MUST possess a strong sense of altruism.

[David]

Minsocal,

 

I am going to ignore conversations between persons on this board and DavidK. I will try to pick out your points without joining any exchange that you want to have with DavidK. I have said before that the only value that DavidK brings to this message board is being a symbol of the religious movement that he represents. Beyond that he has no value on this message board. That does not mean that he has no value. I would love to sit down with him and share our mutual interest in baseball. I do not doubt that he is a “good person”.

 

DavidK and I agree that we can not communicate because in DavidK's words we use the same words with entirely different meanings and in my words we can not communicate because we do not share a common epistemology.

 

I have to admit that I am amazed that people continue to think that they are communicating with him. Exchanging words is not communication. On the other hand, I would not seek to have him leave because he is an able and willing symbol of the religious movement that he represents. It is always interesting to see how progressives respond to that movement. Progressives that hold out the hope that we can join together under some “big tent” mostly make me laugh. A good sense of humor is needed for them and for reading posts from DavidK.

 

I want to continue our conversation on progressive epistemology and I will do that after I digest your posts.

 

Thanks for stretching our conversation beyond the same old conversations. I would caution you however with my point that it is most difficult to either learn much or teach much on this message board.

 

David

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

 

I am going to ignore conversations between persons on this board and DavidK. I will try to pick out your points without joining any exchange that you want to have with DavidK. I have said before that the only value that DavidK brings to this message board is being a symbol of the religious movement that he represents. Beyond that he has no value on this message board. That does not mean that he has no value. I would love to sit down with him and share our mutual interest in baseball. I do not doubt that he is a “good person”.

 

DavidK and I agree that we can not communicate because in DavidK's words we use the same words with entirely different meanings and in my words we can not communicate because we do not share a common epistemology.

 

I have to admit that I am amazed that people continue to think that they are communicating with him. Exchanging words is not communication. On the other hand, I would not seek to have him leave because he is an able and willing symbol of the religious movement that he represents. It is always interesting to see how progressives respond to that movement. Progressives that hold out the hope that we can join together under some “big tent” mostly make me laugh. A good sense of humor is needed for them and for reading posts from DavidK.

 

I want to continue our conversation on progressive epistemology and I will do that after I digest your posts.

 

Thanks for stretching our conversation beyond the same old conversations. I would caution you however with my point that it is most difficult to either learn much or teach much on this message board.

 

David

 

That is fair. You said it was hopeless to communicate with a fundamentalist. Perhaps that is true. I'm not so sure. Davidk asked to enter into a debate with his usual sarcasm and inuendo. He knows what he is doing. I know what he is doing. Let's see where it goes? davidk has a certain amount of integrity, I'm sure. But Progressives cannot sit back and let conservatives frame the issues. That is my point.

[minsocal]

Ok, I'll back off a bit. The following comments are general in nature. davidk can join in if he so desires.

 

But, at this point we have come to the issue of rationality and universal altruism. Did Jesus restrict altruism to his own local community? I suspect not. His message was universal. Universal altruism is a prerequisite for rationality. This brings together a number of factors: 1. empathy (a directed emotion), 2. compassion (a directed emotion in action) ... step two jumps the "gap" between the feeling of empathy (a form of knowledge) and doing (conation or compassion in action). This is in accordance with the principle that knowledge must lead to action, or it is useless. Generally, rationality is nothing without action. This is obviously NOT the domain of Christianity alone. The word "universal" connects all people. There is no option in this regard. This returns us to the special category of "other people". In davidk's terms, the category of "other people" must be an absolute truth, at least as presented by Jesus. Jesus gave us no exceptions.

 

8. Altruism, of the strong kind, can be found in any culture across time. This is an important piece of knowledge. That is why universal altruism plays such a strong role in rationality. Rationality would be local without it. Progressive Christians do not see rationality as local. Progressive Christians do not see the related concept of "love" as local.

 

(to be continued)

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

 

I am going to ignore conversations between persons on this board and DavidK. I will try to pick out your points without joining any exchange that you want to have with DavidK. I have said before that the only value that DavidK brings to this message board is being a symbol of the religious movement that he represents. Beyond that he has no value on this message board. That does not mean that he has no value. I would love to sit down with him and share our mutual interest in baseball. I do not doubt that he is a “good person”.

 

DavidK and I agree that we can not communicate because in DavidK's words we use the same words with entirely different meanings and in my words we can not communicate because we do not share a common epistemology.

 

I have to admit that I am amazed that people continue to think that they are communicating with him. Exchanging words is not communication. On the other hand, I would not seek to have him leave because he is an able and willing symbol of the religious movement that he represents. It is always interesting to see how progressives respond to that movement. Progressives that hold out the hope that we can join together under some “big tent” mostly make me laugh. A good sense of humor is needed for them and for reading posts from DavidK.

 

I want to continue our conversation on progressive epistemology and I will do that after I digest your posts.

 

Thanks for stretching our conversation beyond the same old conversations. I would caution you however with my point that it is most difficult to either learn much or teach much on this message board.

 

David

 

There are two distinct perspectives here. One is to teach. The other is to say "this is who I am, this is what I believe. I do not expect you agree with me. In other words, there is a null point of intersubjectivity where I cannot sacrifice my sense of self, nor can you. I am available to you, but only to the meeting point of subject to subject. You cannot become me and I cannot become you.

[minsocal]

To reiterate:

 

Epistemolgy has to be understood as a limited range of inquiry. It is limited to knowledge. Rationality is not limited to epistemology. As Hume famously said: "Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions".

 

I do not fully agree with this, but it is a good reference point. Sometimes, epistemology seems to be a dispassionate process. That is my point. It's my Jungian tendency. Where oh where does value enter into this equation?