dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/26/84)
>> >> "I can not explain how I know, but I do". >> > That means that you don't. >> >> Do you know how to raise your arm? Of course. But: how do you do it? >> Do you know how to add 2 and 2? Of course. But: how do you do it? >> -- >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > >What we have here is a classic case of the fallacy of argument of the shifting >middle term. > >What does Paul mean by the word "know" in the first sentence? Does it mean >that he has amnesia about making love? I don't think so. There are at least >two meanings of "know" that he wants us to confuse in that first sentence. >The first is "to be convinced of". I certainly won't argue that Paul isn't >convinced of what he says. Others are "to perceive directly", "to have >understanding of", and "to have knowledge" (where we might want to use the >definition of knowledge "facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, >observation, or experience".) > >That last definition, in terms of knowledge, is what Paul doesn't have, >and what he is arguing about. The reason to argue is terms of knowledge as >facts and ideas is to distinguish it from delusion. How can you tell >knowledge from delusion unless others can follow in the same steps? > >In addition, Paul then provides an inappropriate analogy as an incomplete >argument. I know how to raise my arm. But the question to follow is not >"how do I do it", but "how do I know that I can raise my arm". Paul >confuses knowledge with metaknowledge (metaknowledge is knowledge about >knowledge.) Wrong-o. To illustrate: Do I know God? Yes. But how do I do it? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." Ephesians 5:25 Would you die for your wife?
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/26/84)
The question of how one "knows" God is not new, and in the interests of education and better understanding (another overworked word) I will try to briefly present the "traditional" position. We are all aware that the word "know" in English contains lots of not really well related meanings. So when we see in the Bible the phrase "Be still, and that I am God," what does it mean? Protestant tradition has consistently rejected the interpretation that we mean knowledge of the scientific or historical type. To say that we know God in the same way that we know the laws of physics is to imply that we can understand how God works, and that we can understand all his motives. God being infinite, however, there is no reason why we should presume to be able to understand Him, and scripture constantly denies that he is knowable in this way. It is also not really justifiable to say that we know God in the same way that we know about the attack on Pearl Harbor. The historical evidence is thin and by the usual standards is not reliable; scripture indicates that this is in fact intended. We are left with the possibility of knowing God in the way that we know our parents, the form expressed in French by the verb "connaitre": knowing God as a person. The theologians claim that this is in fact the way that we can know God, and it becomes clearer when we rephrase the initial quotation as "Be still, and RECOGNIZE that I am God." We know God not by historical facts, not by scientific observation and deduction, but by recognizing him in his traces in the world, and sometimes face to face. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!manGoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/29/84)
> Charley Wingate umcp-cs!manGoe > We are left with the possibility of knowing God in the way that we know > our parents, the form expressed in French by the verb "connaitre": knowing > God as a person. The theologians claim that this is in fact the way that > we can know God, and it becomes clearer when we rephrase the initial > quotation as "Be still, and RECOGNIZE that I am God." We know God not > by historical facts, not by scientific observation and deduction, but by > recognizing him in his traces in the world, and sometimes face to face. Ah. Finally we're getting "knowing god" pinned down. Thanks for the clarification, Charley. Now, let's talk about this sense of knowing. What is it worth? There are two major ways that this knowledge may be worth nothing. The first if it is unjustifiably specific, and the second if the subject is ficticious. For example, I may know that someone hates me, when in actuality he doesn't care. That may be like "god hates sinners" when in actuality god may not care. Or I may know the character of Hawkeye Pierce very well: yet he is just a character in a TV show, in some ways quite dissimilar from the actor, the writers, etc. So what good is that "knowing"? Everybody "knows" differently. There is no way to tie the knowing to reality (as there would be with a parent) because your ideas are entirely subjective (wheras with a parent, someone else can hear what the parent says to you or about you, or knows if your parent is dead, etc.) It seems obvious to me that the method of "knowing god" is at best a misnomer, and might be a poor strategy for one's life. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh