rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/15/84)
One of the areas where understanding and communication
breaks down between Christians ( and perhaps several other
religious persuasions) and Skeptics or Rationalists is the
knowledge question. I think we have a terminology or definition
problem that causes each group to talk past the other.
First my underlying assumptions are Western in that I think
we all are "real" and that we can talk meaningfully about "knowing"
things objectively and subjectively to some degree.
Let me propose three categories of knowledge ( there may be more
as I have not done extensive study on this subject).
#1) Empirical Knowledge - This information is gathered by direct
observation. Cause and effect are at work and basically
repeatable phenomena are attended to. (i.e. the Scientific
Method is very useful here.) I suspect this type of knowledge
is strongly deductive in nature.
#2) Abstract Knowledge - Ideas and concepts are the key to this
category as "new" knowledge is gained by manipulating concepts.
This type of knowledge would tend to have a large inductive
component. Abstract Knowledge can often be tested empirically
by devising experiments which moves us back up one category.
#3) Revelation Knowledge - I submit that another distinct branch
of knowledge exists that we can call Revelation Knowledge.
This area is not readily explicable by the first two categories
and I guess by default it contains all knowledge not contained
in them. Some knowledge in this category undoubtedly belongs
in one of the first two but we aren't clever enough yet to
sort it out. This is where the Rationalist Skeptic would tend
to jump in and say "All the stuff in your third category is
ONLY items we have yet to discover or think of."
That is the impasse.
If I say God (or U-pick-it) has revealed to me that it
will not rain in Georgia for the next 3.5 years, and then
it rains next Thursday...well my "revelation" is testably
false. But if it doesn't rain for the next 3.5 years my
Prophet status is intact and a fair-minded Rationalist
should admit that at least ONE of the possible explanations
for the result is that I heard from God.
Again, an impasse. This is precisely the point that many Skeptics
gag on....It must be any explanation but the supernatural one
because Skeptics usually allow only category 1 and 2 knowledge
as admissible evidence because those categories are generally
subject to the Scientific Method. Because...Because, it gets
kind of circular for me to follow.
Am I being unfair Rationalists ?
So Rationalists are too narrow because they won't admit a whole
branch of Knowledge and...
Religious Thinkers (please forgive me if you think this is an
oxymoron :-) ) are too slack or non-rigorous by not realizing
that category #3 does not really exist.
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/15/84)
Yes, Bob...but you're navigating toward rather trecherous waters here by implying that what you refer to as "Revelation" can or should not be discussed outside of the more traditional categories of Rational/Empirical epistemology. I would imagine that we'll have the net full for the next epoch or so with a) Platonists/Kantians disputing your view of Rationalism close shave with Occam's razor. Just for fun, let's watch the brouhaha. While I think that you're absolutely correct to point out that net.religion seems full of people who sling mud on the basis of possible epistemic misunderstanding or misrepresentation (it's possible that some wag may even suggest we all slink off to net.Philosophy to ponder this further), I'm not certain that producing a category of Revelation out of the epistemic hat will help much. Both the Empirical tradition and the Rationalist tradition have men of serious religious conviction in their ranks who did not find Revelation a separate category from their formulation of the nature of knowledge (Kant and Bishop Berkeley come to mind here). Besides which, you've left out both the Pragmatist and the Existentialist traditions as well. I heartily agree that there are some problems of language and philosophical presupposition afoot here. I'm just not sure that your formulation is either very helpful either in terms of the history of Christian thought on the subject, or interms of the philosophical distinctions among the armed camps on the net. "If we are adjured to be 'wise as serpents', what constitutes knowledge, serpentwise????" your pal, gtaylor
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ Labelle) (05/17/84)
Category #3 IS NOT KNOWLEDGE or "revealed knowledge" it is fantasy!
Wishfull thinking! The way YOU wish it was not the way it really is!
GEORGEgreg@zinfandel.UUCP (05/20/84)
#R:akgua:-76800:zinfandel:20600005:000:129 zinfandel!greg May 18 11:25:00 1984 George, how do you KNOW that category 3 is not knowledge? Did somebody tell you? :-) Greg Boyd ...zehntel!zinfandel!greg