Jump to content

Progressive Epistemology


McKenna

Recommended Posts

Let's see. Plato (427-347 B.C). Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) Neoplatonism ... Philo, the "Jewish Plato" (ca. 25 B.C. - A.D. 50)! A contemporary of Jesus. It was Philo who maintained that all knowledge comes from a personal relationship with God. Would you like a few more examples of neoplatonism?

It seems Philo was part of the early lineage of the neoplatonist philosophy, but it could not be considered neoplatonism until the 3rd century with Plotinus, who's considered the founder of the philosophy. It can be evidential that the philosphers were the ones being influenced.

It still is not surprising that those reasonable men have philosophical agreement. All of them were trying to reasonably and rationally answer the why's of existence, morality, and knowledge. Christianity doesn't differ either from your report of Philo's maintaining that, knowledge comes from the personal-infinite God. It is replete throughout Scripture, and is something I have mentioned on numerous occasion.

Eastern religions are generally averse to the concept of such a God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It seems Philo was part of the early lineage of the neoplatonist philosophy, but it could not be considered neoplatonism until the 3rd century with Plotinus, who's considered the founder of the philosophy. It can be evidential that the philosphers were the ones being influenced.

It still is not surprising that those reasonable men have philosophical agreement. All of them were trying to reasonably and rationally answer the why's of existence, morality, and knowledge. Christianity doesn't differ either from your report of Philo's maintaining that, knowledge comes from the personal-infinite God. It is replete throughout Scripture, and is something I have mentioned on numerous occasion.

Eastern religions are generally averse to the concept of such a God.

 

Jesus, being a Jew, might have known about the teachings of Philo. It is certainly possible that Paul encountered many Platonic ideas, and felt compelled to incoroprate them into early church theology. The problem facing early Christians was how to bring non-Jews to Christianity. While all of this was going on, the Jewish community was being torn apart by Christian Jews leaving the fold. This was a traumatic divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, being a Jew, might have known about the teachings of Philo. It is certainly possible that Paul encountered many Platonic ideas, and felt compelled to incoroprate them into early church theology. The problem facing early Christians was how to bring non-Jews to Christianity. While all of this was going on, the Jewish community was being torn apart by Christian Jews leaving the fold. This was a traumatic divide.

I agree but have a slightly diferent perspective to present for your consideration.

It appears substantial, but it is difficult to know exactly how much influence the Son of God, Jesus, or the other Jew- the scholar Paul, had on Philo, and how much of the Christian theology and philosophy was incorporated into the Jewish and secular philosophies. The Romans and the Greeks and the Jews had talked with Jesus and Paul (one way or another) and with some of the movements in their philosophies, it made the Christian one not just palatable but a readily understandable philosophy for them. It sometimes was not an easy task, like the Jews there were stubborn quarters.

The Jewish traditions, were re-examined, exposing the hypocrasies that inevitably invades anything when it turns political. That's not to say the orthodox Jew did not experience some confusion. It was traumatic for some, exhilarating for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but have a slightly diferent perspective to present for your consideration.

It appears substantial, but it is difficult to know exactly how much influence the Son of God, Jesus, or the other Jew- the scholar Paul, had on Philo, and how much of the Christian theology and philosophy was incorporated into the Jewish and secular philosophies. The Romans and the Greeks and the Jews had talked with Jesus and Paul (one way or another) and with some of the movements in their philosophies, it made the Christian one not just palatable but a readily understandable philosophy for them. It sometimes was not an easy task, like the Jews there were stubborn quarters.

The Jewish traditions, were re-examined, exposing the hypocrasies that inevitably invades anything when it turns political. That's not to say the orthodox Jew did not experience some confusion. It was traumatic for some, exhilarating for others.

 

Paul was educated in Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy, Plato in particular. He was, after all, a Roman citizen. The notion of a human soul containing the spark of God clearly traces to Greek philosophy. My own views follow the claim made by Paul that "to know what is moral does not guarantee moral behavior (Hergenhahn, 1992)." The point I have been attempting to make concerning innate moral emotions and intuitions (the spark) are in agreement with Paul, only the terms change and not the concept. Those who are researching innate moral emotions and intuitions find them in all cultures. The spark is contained in all, although I usually avoid using the term "soul".

 

My comment about Christian Hebrews leaving the fold was intended only to note that when they (the Christian Hebrews) split from Judaism, it was a tragic experience for the Hebrew community. It took several generations for the wounds to heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was educated in Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy, Plato in particular. He was, after all, a Roman citizen. The notion of a human soul containing the spark of God clearly traces to Greek philosophy. My own views follow the claim made by Paul that "to know what is moral does not guarantee moral behavior (Hergenhahn, 1992)." The point I have been attempting to make concerning innate moral emotions and intuitions (the spark) are in agreement with Paul, only the terms change and not the concept. Those who are researching innate moral emotions and intuitions find them in all cultures. The spark is contained in all, although I usually avoid using the term "soul".

 

My comment about Christian Hebrews leaving the fold was intended only to note that when they (the Christian Hebrews) split from Judaism, it was a tragic experience for the Hebrew community. It took several generations for the wounds to heal.

On this point, with some minor differences, I would say we agree.

May I ask: Why doesn't that innate moral knowledge guarantee moral behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be taken literally, the "soul" that Paul talks about is our innate nature. That nature is complex and varied. Yet, that nature is purely the creation of God. Nothing in the universe is not the creation of God. A long time ago I gave up wondering how this could be and just accepted that this is just the way things are.

 

God knew what she was doing, and we just gotta figure it out.

 

Now, I was taught that 52 years ago in Sunday School. Catch up davidk! Run ... run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be taken literally, the "soul" that Paul talks about is our innate nature. That nature is complex and varied. Yet, that nature is purely the creation of God. Nothing in the universe is not the creation of God. A long time ago I gave up wondering how this could be and just accepted that this is just the way things are.

 

God knew what she was doing, and we just gotta figure it out.

 

Now, I was taught that 52 years ago in Sunday School. Catch up davidk! Run ... run.

 

It seems to me this is a most excellent and true post. There is nothing to figure out except that there is nothing to figure out. All is known and can be subjectively experienced and any verbal communications as a result is at best at some level of understanding fallacious.

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what Paul was talking about.
Paul did not leave it unanswered.

 

Not to be taken literally, the "soul" that Paul talks about is our innate nature. That nature is complex and varied. Yet, that nature is purely the creation of God. Nothing in the universe is not the creation of God. A long time ago I gave up wondering how this could be and just accepted that this is just the way things are.

 

God knew what she was doing, and we just gotta figure it out.

 

Now, I was taught that 52 years ago in Sunday School. Catch up davidk! Run ... run.

If you contend that it's not literal, how then can you presume to say the soul/innate nature is a complex, pure creation of God?

Only by taking it literally can you reasonably argue that it exists as you say, a creation of God.

 

I confidently say that all that exists was created by the creator- God. That has long been the standard I have argued from the beginning to explain why everything is the way it is.

 

Knowing God created everything is the foundation for the founders of modern science to understand that "we just gotta figure it out" would be a reasoned and rational effort.

 

I'm glad we agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a 'soul' has two meanings. The old meaning is that of something literally implanted by God into 'life' in synchronic real-time (proximate cause), or as a principle of creation itself, meant to evolve over time (ultimate and diachronic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a 'soul' has two meanings. The old meaning is that of something literally implanted by God into 'life' in synchronic real-time (proximate cause), or as a principle of creation itself, meant to evolve over time (ultimate and diachronic).

Yeah, ok- So, are you saying our choices are: that man's soul literally happened by chance; or was literally endowed by God. Or that it didn't literally happen or literally come from God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, ok- So, are you saying our choices are: that man's soul literally happened by chance; or was literally endowed by God. Or that it didn't literally happen or literally come from God?

 

Others here have claimed that you do not listen very well. I will make another claim. I do not think you intend to listen. I think you know exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it. The problem is not epistemology (belief), the problem is desire. Your responses are very predictable. You simply take what was has long been a progressive stance and twist it into what you want it to look like. It is done on many message boards in exactly this fashion.

 

Progressives do not have to explain one darn thing to you. Not one. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epistemology is not rationality. I will leave it at that.

Both sides need to be better listeners. Not wanting to explain what progressives believe runs counter to the stated purpose of the entire board.

 

Apparently there is some confusion about what a question does. It asks. It doesn't claim or attempt to twist anything one way or another. If the question is not clear or you think it may be making false assumptions, illuminate them so the more appropriate question can be asked.

 

When you had said, "Not to be taken literally, the "soul" that Paul talks about is our innate nature." and then said, "The old meaning is that of something literally implanted by God... , or as a principle of creation itself,..." ; you had left me somewhat confused whether to understand the soul as literal or not.

 

If ones knowing that he knows cannot be considered being rational, why should any knowledge not be considered irrational? Doesn't that seem as any knowledge of the existence of our desires would be no exception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides need to be better listeners. Not wanting to explain what progressives believe runs counter to the stated purpose of the entire board.

 

Apparently there is some confusion about what a question does. It asks. It doesn't claim or attempt to twist anything one way or another. If the question is not clear or you think it may be making false assumptions, illuminate them so the more appropriate question can be asked.

 

When you had said, "Not to be taken literally, the "soul" that Paul talks about is our innate nature." and then said, "The old meaning is that of something literally implanted by God... , or as a principle of creation itself,..." ; you had left me somewhat confused whether to understand the soul as literal or not.

 

If ones knowing that he knows cannot be considered being rational, why should any knowledge not be considered irrational? Doesn't that seem as any knowledge of the existence of our desires would be no exception?

 

The real issues here are really quite simple. If "ensoulment" occurs at conception, as some believe, you have certain ethical considerations that are at the core of the debate over abortion, etc. That would be a synchronic event, and not the process of evolution, which is a diachronic process. Paul had no understanding of evolution, nor did Plato. If both were alive today it would be interesting to see how both would respond to modern science and the simple facts of biology and physics.

 

This brings me to a most important point about Progressive Christianity. Where some believe that evolution preaches an anti-God stance, this is just nonsense. Progressive Christians maintain a belief in God within the context of the facts of evolution and physics. When I speak of a soul, I simply mean those positive aspects of the "God within" that have evolved over billions of "years" as set forth by God. I have previously stated, over and over, that "time" means nothing to an Eternal God. A "day" is one revolution of the planet Earth. Time is a human concept and not a God concept. If a "day" were a God concept, it would have some meaning before the planet Earth was even created, and the period of revolution for all other planets in the universe would be irrelevant.

 

The upshot of all this is that we humans have been far too arrogant in our assumptions about our relationship to the cosmos and to God. We tend to think that God only loved "us" into existence, when it is really the case that God loved the cosmos into existence. The facts are that we can now observe that cosmos still being created. Through the Hubble telescope and other instruments we see the magnificence of creation still happening. This does not disturb Progressive Christians. On the contrary, it can be the source of immense awe and gratitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

If ones knowing that he knows cannot be considered being rational, why should any knowledge not be considered irrational? Doesn't that seem as any knowledge of the existence of our desires would be no exception?

 

It can be 'considered' rational or irrational for that matter but as minsolcal said "epistemology is not rationality" The words have their own meaning and are not equal to each other as your taking exception to that statement seems to suppose.

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minsocal,

If one says their study of the method and grounds of knowledge is not amenable to reason, then one has no epistemology.

---

Evolution is strictly a naturalist theory, a scientific philosophy that rejects the possibility of supernatural phenomena, and is ony the impersonal- time plus chance; an undirected process. Many people don't have that viewpoint, but it doesn't change the theory.

---

It doesn't appear anywhere that Paul nor Plato would have any objection to scientific study.

 

Time does not exist by man but for man by God. The fact that it exists is scientific observation; it can be measured. Time existed before the earth was. The earth is merely a reference point for us to learn to measure from.

 

It seems you are saying no man has an individual soul. That it is only a part of the collective soul of God. If we are only a part of a whole and are not considered as individuals in spirit as well as in body, why are we here? Why would any of us have any meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressive epistemology is exactly what the name implies. It makes its appeal to progress, change, evolution, development and renewal. Something called growth.

That appears to be an effort toward rationality.

 

The human investment in arrogance, now THAT would be original sin!

BINGO!

By George, I think he's got it!

Man, powerless to rehabilitate himself from his own arrogance (autonomy, sin), is rescued only by God. This gives the Grace of God a rationally sufficient meaning. We know this because we learn it from the only place God's truth has been propositionally revealed to us, the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears to be an effort toward rationality.

BINGO!

By George, I think he's got it!

Man, powerless to rehabilitate himself from his own arrogance (autonomy, sin), is rescued only by God. This gives the Grace of God a rationally sufficient meaning. We know this because we learn it from the only place God's truth has been propositionally revealed to us, the Bible.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What makes it original is that there was a time before man's sin and then there is the first space-time event when man turned away from the infinite, personal God by choice, and in so doing, there was a moral discontinuity; man became something he was not, and the dilemma of man became a true moral problem rather than a metaphysical one. Man at a certain place in history, changed himself, in discontinuity from what what he was, and we have a true moral situation: morals suddenly exist. Everything hangs on the fact that man is abnormal now, in contrast to what he originally was. Man turned from trusting and obeying God to investing in himself, unduly exalting his own worth in his willful turn from God to himself.

 

The non-Christian philospher says that man is normal now. Martin Heidegger, perhaps the greatest of the modern non-Christian philosophers, did see that the position that man is normal leads to a dead end.

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