Jump to content

Progressive Epistemology


McKenna

Recommended Posts

-

Wayseer,

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

Thanks.

 

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

-

 

McKenna

"Okay I didn't realize the definition was so complicated. I was just going off my basic definition that epistemology is "how we know what we know."

Your basic definition covers all that he is including. Don't let it confuse you.

 

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

-

 

minsocal,

 

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

 

"...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."

How can you know you know if sources are irrational? This source is irrational.

 

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

 

You do have a right to believe whatever you desire, even if it makes no sense. " Make a conscious selection and place it into your belief system regardless of structure."

-

It is unfortunate, but there is nothing in your 7 points of belief, on post #46, that suggests a Christian perspective.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply
minsocal, you have been the first to put forth what may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology, Point 1. And your post #33 states the issues I am trying to flesh out one step at a time so we don't get ahead of ourselves.

 

"Viewed in this manner, some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and the possiblity of continuous growth and a more spiritual life." - minsocal

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

 

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

 

Point 1

 

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

 

You contradict yourself now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minsocal,

 

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

 

"...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."

How can you know you know if sources are irrational? This source is irrational.

 

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

 

You do have a right to believe whatever you desire, even if it makes no sense. " Make a conscious selection and place it into your belief system regardless of structure."

-

It is unfortunate, but there is nothing in your 7 points of belief, on post #46, that suggests a Christian perspective.

-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Point 4. No comment.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 1

 

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

 

 

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

 

Davidk writes

 

Wayseer,

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

Thanks.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Davidk writes

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davidk,

 

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

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

 

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

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Nope, Just never got far enough for Kant. We got ahead of ourselves. (FYI- Kant has been addressed on another board). As far as Socrates is concerned, our knowledge of his work is based on writings of others. I started with his star student, Plato. Socrates didn't write any philosophical texts that I know of.

-

I mean to be direct, not rude.

-

As far as the TCPC 8 Points are concerned, I acknowledged that you claimed something that may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology. Forgive me if I led you to believe I agreed with Point One. In Post #33, second paragraph, you exposed the problems I was trying to "flesh out". I hope that relieves me of being contradictory.

-

I find Point One of TCPC's progressive 'epistemology' purposefully ambiguous. It was written with the expressed purpose of not acknowledging Jesus for who he said he was. That would be from the Biblical source from which you learn of his life and teachings. And, as it was picked up in Point 2, for allowing room for all other faiths to be as adequate as Christianity. That is not my claim, as wayseer may describe it.

-

I've read some Blavatsky and de Chardin. While some Biblical facts are used to generate it's theory, it vears considerably from the Bible into Hinduism, even claiming consciousness exists in rocks.

-

"This is a direct quote from a highly regarded source." "...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."- I know, it's a shame isn't it. An institution like Cambridge reaching such a hopeless state, bereft of reason, resorting to the irrational for their meaning in life and knowledge.

-

Let me try again to explain. Intuition does not make a conscious rational effort to attain knowledge. That does not mean intuition is not endowed with reason/rationality. If our intuition were irrational it could not communicate with our conscious rational mind. Intuition is not non-rational.

-

Our moral motions are intuitions of the knowledge of good and evil. We know stealing is wrong. We know charity is right. Jesus words that 'ring true' to us are His verbalizing of those moral motions of good and evil. This verbalizing is 'heard' by us and can be reasonably understood. Jesus speaks objectively, by His authority, so now we know that we know.

-

What do you suspect my needs to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, Just never got far enough for Kant. We got ahead of ourselves. (FYI- Kant has been addressed on another board). As far as Socrates is concerned, our knowledge of his work is based on writings of others. I started with his star student, Plato. Socrates didn't write any philosophical texts that I know of.

-

I mean to be direct, not rude.

-

As far as the TCPC 8 Points are concerned, I acknowledged that you claimed something that may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology. Forgive me if I led you to believe I agreed with Point One. In Post #33, second paragraph, you exposed the problems I was trying to "flesh out". I hope that relieves me of being contradictory.

-

I find Point One of TCPC's progressive 'epistemology' purposefully ambiguous. It was written with the expressed purpose of not acknowledging Jesus for who he said he was. That would be from the Biblical source from which you learn of his life and teachings. And, as it was picked up in Point 2, for allowing room for all other faiths to be as adequate as Christianity. That is not my claim, as wayseer may describe it.

-

I've read some Blavatsky and de Chardin. While some Biblical facts are used to generate it's theory, it vears considerably from the Bible into Hinduism, even claiming consciousness exists in rocks.

-

"This is a direct quote from a highly regarded source." "...non-rational sources of knowledge are accepted and the same is true in the theory of meaning (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Audi, Ed)."- I know, it's a shame isn't it. An institution like Cambridge reaching such a hopeless state, bereft of reason, resorting to the irrational for their meaning in life and knowledge.

-

Let me try again to explain. Intuition does not make a conscious rational effort to attain knowledge. That does not mean intuition is not endowed with reason/rationality. If our intuition were irrational it could not communicate with our conscious rational mind. Intuition is not non-rational.

-

Our moral motions are intuitions of the knowledge of good and evil. We know stealing is wrong. We know charity is right. Jesus words that 'ring true' to us are His verbalizing of those moral motions of good and evil. This verbalizing is 'heard' by us and can be reasonably understood. Jesus speaks objectively, by His authority, so now we know that we know.

-

What do you suspect my needs to be?

 

As to the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy". It is a dictionary composed of entries written by hundreds of experts in their field from all over the world, not by Cambridge. It is considered to be one of the most intellectually honest sources of its type. If you crosscheck its veracity with other respected sources, you will find a remarkable consistency. If this does not suit you, there is simply nothing more anyone could say. I provided the definition in post 33 in order to avoid any long winded lectures and confusion over what epitemology is really about. If you understand epistemology, you might not have had to "flesh out" the principles involved. You could then have provided the principles in a straightforward fashion for all to see in a paragraph or two.

 

As to the Eight Points and "purpose". If you have gone through the study guide and understand how and why they were developed, that is one thing. Otherwise your opinion in a dialoge about Progressive Christianity is somewhat dubious, to say the least. If you wish to be respected here, it is the least you could do. Your comment places the burden of proof on you as to the intentions of many fine scholars and ordinary individuals who participate in providing a sound basis from which Progressive Christians can define themselves to others. That is part of the purpose of the Eight Points.

 

As you failed to understand the purpose of the dialogue in the other thread, I see no reason to debate you on the definition of intuition any longer. If you wish to defend the thesis of moral realty, as compared to other perspectives, then I think you should at least provide us with a rational explanation as to why your viewpoint must be accepted here. There are people here who might want to choose another perspective if they clearly understood the alternatives you apparently reject. This is an ethical problem.

 

As noted on the other thread, the two sets of moral intuitions concerning Progressive Christians have to do with (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity. These form a significant part of the Eight Points. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, you find these principles stated quite clearly. This is a key emphasis within Progressive Christianity. Care for the poor, the widows, the sick, and so on. A progressive epistemology would target those principles first and foremost. If you wish to address the other three moral inuitions from the other thead, please do so in some kind of orderly fashion so those here can understand your perspective.

 

For the curious these are: Ingroup - Loyalty and Authority - Respect. For example, you might want to address the relationship of ingroup loyalty compared to the principle of inclusiveness. Or, you might argue that a hierarchical and often patriarchal system is to be preferred over the principle of egalitarianism. You would also need to show how these moral intuitions are related to the problem of "good and evil", "right and wrong" since you maintain that this is the purpose of moral intuitions. Since you have an interest in philosophy, you might present the moral theory of John Rawls and tell us why it is defective, and so on.

 

As to your other comment concerning cosmogenisis, it has a role in Progressive Christianity with significant implications in Process Theology and elsewhere. It would be better if you understand those implications before you pass them off as insignificant or question the purpose of developing such a perspective.

 

If in your life, you need certainty for fulfillment, that is your need. Others have different needs, which they address appropriately. I did not appreciate your paraphrase where you took my words and inserted certainty.

 

Finally, it puzzles me how someone who seeks refute some of the basic principles of Progressive Chrisianity wants to participate in building "a progressive epistemology". As noted elsewhere, you use "we" and "we must" inappropriatly some times. Many here are on their own journey of discovery and want to make their own choices whether you think they make sense to you of not. I encourage you to state your your own opinions as your own and be prepared to defend them. If others do not agree, then perhaps you should not keep pressing on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Consistency does not alleviate Cambridge's coalition of academics from their problem of having to be dependent on the irrational for a rational answer. Surely you can see the illegitimacy of that reasoning.

 

2 Your "quote" on #33 was 2 questions that you clearly stated to be problems, not principles. "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.". This sort of quote begs for more dialogue.

-

3 On points 1 & 2 and their purposeful (intentional) ambiguity; I have been through the study guides and my response to point 1 & 2 was accurate. There is no compelling Christian argument for their support. The intentions of the writers are born out. You may consider my opinion no longer dubious.

-

4 "As you failed to understand the purpose of the dialogue in the other thread,..." And all this time I thought it was you when you claimed I said intuition is irrational. And "If you wish to defend the thesis of moral realty, ..." Wait a minute, have we been discussing whether morals are real or not? I know they are. Do you not think they are?

-

5 ..."the two sets of moral intuitions... (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity." ... (the other three moral intuitions) are: Ingroup - Loyalty and Authority - Respect. For example, you might want to address the relationship of ingroup loyalty compared to the principle of inclusiveness. Or, you might argue that a hierarchical and often patriarchal system is to be preferred over the principle of egalitarianism. You would also need to show how these moral intuitions are related to the problem of "good and evil", "right and wrong" since you maintain that this is the purpose of moral intuitions."

You'll need to go a little slower for me here. You want a rational dialogue about irrational moral intuitions that have rational attributes. Sorry, you're on your own here.

 

6 "...cosmogenisis, it has a role in Progressive Christianity with significant implications in Process Theology and elsewhere. It would be better if you understand those implications before you pass them off as insignificant or question the purpose of developing such a perspective.

..." There's no surprise there and it really doesn't need any more comment. Maybe you should ask the rock. :)

-

7 "If in your life, you need certainty for fulfillment, that is your need." We all need a place to root. Otherwise, we'll all just blow around and die.

-

8 "Others have different needs, which they address appropriately. I did not appreciate your paraphrase where you took my words and inserted certainty."

Sorry, it wasn't really a paraphrase was it. It was more, an editorial change.

-

9 "Finally, it puzzles me how someone who seeks refute some of the basic principles of Progressive Chrisianity wants to participate in building "a progressive epistemology" The thread was looking for an epistemology from the progressives. Not in trying to manufacture one.

The history trip, though incomplete, began to show philosophy changing from a God oriented world view to a man oriented world view. That man's reason alone is the source of knowledge; it alone would establish truth and determine morality; eventually discovering all answers through the experience.

 

10

I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be. It still appears liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything.

 

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

11

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.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Consistency does not alleviate Cambridge's coalition of academics from their problem of having to be dependent on the irrational for a rational answer. Surely you can see the illegitimacy of that reasoning.

 

2 Your "quote" on #33 was 2 questions that you clearly stated to be problems, not principles. "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.". This sort of quote begs for more dialogue.

-

3 On points 1 & 2 and their purposeful (intentional) ambiguity; I have been through the study guides and my response to point 1 & 2 was accurate. There is no compelling Christian argument for their support. The intentions of the writers are born out. You may consider my opinion no longer dubious.

-

4 "As you failed to understand the purpose of the dialogue in the other thread,..." And all this time I thought it was you when you claimed I said intuition is irrational. And "If you wish to defend the thesis of moral realty, ..." Wait a minute, have we been discussing whether morals are real or not? I know they are. Do you not think they are?

-

5 ..."the two sets of moral intuitions... (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity." ... (the other three moral intuitions) are: Ingroup - Loyalty and Authority - Respect. For example, you might want to address the relationship of ingroup loyalty compared to the principle of inclusiveness. Or, you might argue that a hierarchical and often patriarchal system is to be preferred over the principle of egalitarianism. You would also need to show how these moral intuitions are related to the problem of "good and evil", "right and wrong" since you maintain that this is the purpose of moral intuitions."

You'll need to go a little slower for me here. You want a rational dialogue about irrational moral intuitions that have rational attributes. Sorry, you're on your own here.

 

6 "...cosmogenisis, it has a role in Progressive Christianity with significant implications in Process Theology and elsewhere. It would be better if you understand those implications before you pass them off as insignificant or question the purpose of developing such a perspective.

..." There's no surprise there and it really doesn't need any more comment. Maybe you should ask the rock. :)

-

7 "If in your life, you need certainty for fulfillment, that is your need." We all need a place to root. Otherwise, we'll all just blow around and die.

-

8 "Others have different needs, which they address appropriately. I did not appreciate your paraphrase where you took my words and inserted certainty."

Sorry, it wasn't really a paraphrase was it. It was more, an editorial change.

-

9 "Finally, it puzzles me how someone who seeks refute some of the basic principles of Progressive Chrisianity wants to participate in building "a progressive epistemology" The thread was looking for an epistemology from the progressives. Not in trying to manufacture one.

The history trip, though incomplete, began to show philosophy changing from a God oriented world view to a man oriented world view. That man's reason alone is the source of knowledge; it alone would establish truth and determine morality; eventually discovering all answers through the experience.

 

10

11

 

1. No, I cannot. Experts in the field set the definitions and standards of debate, not you or me. What credentials do you have to overide experts in the field? Huh?

 

2. Have you read Plato's Apology? Or Michel de Montaign (sixteenth century)? Then a discussion might well proceed.

 

3. That is what I would have expected you to do in the first place. Your claim of "no compelling Christian argument" is your own now, and readers can evaluate your perspective accordingly. I reject your claim.

 

4. You present a theory. You "know" they are. Defend your convictions (hint, see Socrates to support your own argument). No, we have not been discussing whether morals are real. You have been debating yourself for the most part. Moral reality is your theory and assumption.

 

5. Then why did you join the discussion on the other thread? On the contrary ... it is you who are on your own. What motivated your responses on the other thread if you do not even understand the principles?

 

6. Maybe you should accept reality. The world really is evolving. Tough luck.

 

7. A univeralising statement that denies individual differences. "We all..." We all ..." I have a dear friend who is 96 years old. Still moving on into new inquiries. He says certainty is boring.

 

8. Why I was suspicious of your intentions in the first place. Not a good way to gain trust, huh?

 

9. It would have been simpler just to say that in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No, I cannot.

 

'Non-rational sources of knowledge' is an oxymoron. The irrational could not be understood nor communicated. It's chaos. Nothing exists in chaos.

 

You either believe the universe and man is rational or irrational, it cannot be both. You can claim irrationality very convincingly but it cannot be held in practice.

 

The universe has form and order. If it were irrational, it would be chaotic and would come to an end. To live at all is not possible except in the understanding that the universe that is there has a certain form, a certain order, and man conforms to that order and so he can live in it. Some academics try to bring in order, rationality. As soon as this is done the irrational is no longer self-consistant, it falls to the ground, it cannot be held in practice.

 

To hold to irrationality properly, discussion would end because communication would end. The irrational is chaos. Nothing exists in chaos. To try and communicate the irrational you have to use the rational. Irrationality cannot be held in practice.

 

If I understand you correctly; you depend on your own reasoning and experience for knowledge, but you're not certain because it keeps 'evolving'. You depend on irrational sources for knowledge, not able to be certain of them either. You believe in a limited(?) rationality. You are comfortable in ambiguity, by holding onto two or more logically incompatable beliefs at the same time; and the uncertainty of any meaning or significance or position in relation to something or somebody else. You know you have moral 'intuition' (motions), but apparently not certain where morals come from.

 

In other words: Liberal/Progressive Theology and Christianity are two seperate religions with nothing in common except certain terms which they use with totally different meanings; and far worse, Liberal/Progressive theology is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything.

 

We are at an end. I'm afraid this thread did not meet its goals for McKenna. To that end, I apologize. I was hoping something concrete would come out of this for her. I love you all and my prayer is for God's grace to you all. If you're like me, you'll need it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :lol:

 

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.

 

Experience is thought to fall into three spheres: (1) autonomy, (2) community, (3) spiritual (original credit to the antroplogist Richard Shweder). A large portion of the the debate here and in several other threads has been over the notion that some our experience is guided by innate predispositions targeting all three spheres. Even my favorite philosopher, an agnostic, added a chapter titled "Beyond Atheism" to his basic handbook of philosophy. Here he admits that a very large proportion of the population has an "urge towards the spiritual", which even he cannot explain. He also states elsewhere that we have an innate capacity to treat others not as "objects" but in a very special way. By this he means that all three spheres are very important to us and, at least in part, "built in" to our very personality.

 

Autonomy refers to an individual's interests and rights. Community is related to both the mores of the social group and an inclination to join with others in cooperation. The spiritual (sometimes called divinity) pertains to a sense of holiness (as used by Shweder and others). Others speak of a spiriitual union with all others and all of Creation. To interject an historical note here, Pierre Janet (early 1900's) called "the spiritual union with others" the highest level of human thought, which he named "progressive thought". Interesting?

 

The hypothesis then is that we have innate intuitions that guide us in all three spheres. It is part of our very nature. I proposed this argument to davik:

 

"As noted on the other thread, the two sets of moral intuitions concerning Progressive Christians have to do with (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity. These form a significant part of the Eight Points. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, you find these principles stated quite clearly. This is a key emphasis within Progressive Christianity. Care for the poor, the widows, the sick, and so on. A progressive epistemology would target those principles first and foremost. If you wish to address the other three moral inuitions from the other thead, please do so in some kind of orderly fashion so those here can understand your perspective.

 

For the curious these are: Ingroup - Loyalty and Authority - Respect. For example, you might want to address the relationship of ingroup loyalty compared to the principle of inclusiveness. Or, you might argue that a hierarchical and often patriarchal system is to be preferred over the principle of egalitarianism."

 

I think that the Eight Points integrate the three spheres into a coherent system.

 

Hope this is a little clearer?

 

I agree that plualism is a positive thing, and it is also embedded in the Eight Points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experience is thought to fall into three spheres: (1) autonomy, (2) community, (3) spiritual (original credit to the antroplogist Richard Shweder). A large portion of the the debate here and in several other threads has been over the notion that some our experience is guided by innate predispositions targeting all three spheres. Even my favorite philosopher, an agnostic, added a chapter titled "Beyond Atheism" to his basic handbook of philosophy. Here he admits that a very large proportion of the population has an "urge towards the spiritual", which even he cannot explain. He also states elsewhere that we have an innate capacity to treat others not as "objects" but in a very special way. By this he means that all three spheres are very important to us and, at least in part, "built in" to our very personality.

 

Autonomy refers to an individual's interests and rights. Community is related to both the mores of the social group and an inclination to join with others in cooperation. The spiritual (sometimes called divinity) pertains to a sense of holiness (as used by Shweder and others). Others speak of a spiriitual union with all others and all of Creation. To interject an historical note here, Pierre Janet (early 1900's) called "the spiritual union with others" the highest level of human thought, which he named "progressive thought". Interesting?

 

The hypothesis then is that we have innate intuitions that guide us in all three spheres. It is part of our very nature. I proposed this argument to davik:

 

"As noted on the other thread, the two sets of moral intuitions concerning Progressive Christians have to do with (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity. These form a significant part of the Eight Points. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, you find these principles stated quite clearly. This is a key emphasis within Progressive Christianity. Care for the poor, the widows, the sick, and so on. A progressive epistemology would target those principles first and foremost. If you wish to address the other three moral inuitions from the other thead, please do so in some kind of orderly fashion so those here can understand your perspective.

 

For the curious these are: Ingroup - Loyalty and Authority - Respect. For example, you might want to address the relationship of ingroup loyalty compared to the principle of inclusiveness. Or, you might argue that a hierarchical and often patriarchal system is to be preferred over the principle of egalitarianism."

 

I think that the Eight Points integrate the three spheres into a coherent system.

 

Hope this is a little clearer?

 

I agree that plualism is a positive thing, and it is also embedded in the Eight Points.

 

That makes a lot more sense now, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me! :)

 

I reread the Eight Points with this in mind, and I think I see what you mean regarding them.

 

Thanks again :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Autonomy refers to an individual's interests and rights. Community is related to both the mores of the social group and an inclination to join with others in cooperation. The spiritual (sometimes called divinity) pertains to a sense of holiness (as used by Shweder and others). Others speak of a spiriitual union with all others and all of Creation. To interject an historical note here, Pierre Janet (early 1900's) called "the spiritual union with others" the highest level of human thought, which he named "progressive thought". Interesting?

 

The hypothesis then is that we have innate intuitions that guide us in all three spheres. It is part of our very nature. I proposed this argument to davik:

 

"As noted on the other thread, the two sets of moral intuitions concerning Progressive Christians have to do with (1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity. These form a significant part of the Eight Points. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, you find these principles stated quite clearly. This is a key emphasis within Progressive Christianity. Care for the poor, the widows, the sick, and so on. A progressive epistemology would target those principles first and foremost. If you wish to address the other three moral inuitions from the other thead, please do so in some kind of orderly fashion so those here can understand your perspective.

Autonomy is the quality or state of being independant, free, and self-directing.

Jesus did not teach man's autonomy in His summary of the Commandments.

 

Your reference to an "individual's interests and rights" is not the primary Christian position of man which relies on God's autonomy and the spiritual union with Him through Jesus as the 'highest level'. Only then we will have adequate reason to be "(1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Autonomy is the quality or state of being independant, free, and self-directing.

Jesus did not teach man's autonomy in His summary of the Commandments.

 

Your reference to an "individual's interests and rights" is not the primary Christian position of man which relies on God's autonomy and the spiritual union with Him through Jesus as the 'highest level'. Only then we will have adequate reason to be "(1) caring for others and not doing harm, (2) fairnessness and reciprocity".

 

 

Are we developing a moral code of ethics? In truth?

 

What is truth?

 

Have you written a good book lately? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we developing a moral code of ethics? In truth?

 

What is truth?

 

Have you written a good book lately? :)

For starters:

Psalm 119:142; "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, Thy Law is truth."

160; "The sum of thy word is truth,...";

Daniel 4:47 "...all His works are truth and His ways just,... and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

John 14:6; "Jesus said to him, I am the... truth,";

John 17:17; "Thy word is truth.";

Col 1:5; "...the word of truth, the Gospel."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters:

Psalm 119:142; "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, Thy Law is truth."

160; "The sum of thy word is truth,...";

Daniel 4:47 "...all His works are truth and His ways just,... and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

John 14:6; "Jesus said to him, I am the... truth,";

John 17:17; "Thy word is truth.";

Col 1:5; "...the word of truth, the Gospel."

 

Romans 15:14

 

14 I myself feel confident about you, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
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?

 

... :)

Christians have no problem with epistemology:

God made the universe, he made man to live in that universe, and He gives us the Bible, the verbalized, propositional, factual revelation, to tell us what we need to know. God made the subject and the object, the known and the knower, and He put them together. Therefore, there is no surprise that there exists a corrolation between the two. Modern science was born from this, it is possible by reason to find things out and to objectively put them to the test.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians have no problem with epistemology:

God made the universe, he made man to live in that universe, and He gives us the Bible, the verbalized, propositional, factual revelation, to tell us what we need to know. God made the subject and the object, the known and the knower, and He put them together. Therefore, there is no surprise that there exists a corrolation between the two. Modern science was born from this, it is possible by reason to find things out and to objectively put them to the test.

 

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.

 

Corrolation? Perhaps you mean correlation? In what sense are you using the term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service