by dunsscot 54 Replies latest jw friends
:Hello Duns,
I have some thoughts on the subject of teaching and on the subject of philosophy.:
Hi larc,
Thanks for the practical advice. Believe it or not, I am always willing to learn from those who have more experience than I do. :-) I will read James' book.
Take care!
Duns the Scot
:Given that the Marxist and the capitalist are both of reasonable intelligence, why should clear evidence be unclear to either? I am only too painfully aware of our own emotional limitations, having been a faithful JW for my entire life, but I don't view them as a good excuse for making most determinations.:
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. What you call "emotional limitations" or what I would term "presuppositions" often prevent us from seeing facts "clearly." Philosophers of religion say that proofs are often person-relative. In other words, what is "clear" or cogent evidence for one person is not "clear" or cogent for another individual. I think we see this principle at play often when people debate political issues. Democrats and Republicans can look at the same body of facts and come to two entirely different opposing conclusions. Neither side can understand how the opposing side fails to see the clarity in certain arguments. "Emotional limitations" and party loyalties often blind us to "clear" facts. Then again, some thinkers say no "facts" are brute or unfiltered.
:Also, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have to determine the quiddity of "clear evidence."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand that statement, could you explain?:
Quiddity is a fancy way of saying "whatness." The word refers to the essence or real nature of a thing (res). Therefore, what I meant above is that we have to define the very nature or whatness of "clear evidence." However, this procedure can be very time-consuming and exigent. Read the dialogues of Plato and you will see what I mean. In one of the Platonic works, an interlocutor of Socrates puts forth a definition of knowledge. But by the time Socrates is finished with this young man, the lad has to admit that his notions concerning the quiddity of knowledge were initially deficient. Socrates also dismantles common views of justice in the Republic. He teaches us how difficult it is to delineate the whatness of things like evidence and clarity, etc.
Duns the Scot
What you call "emotional limitations" or what I would term "presuppositions" often prevent us from seeing facts "clearly."
Keyword*: often
as opposed to "necessarily"
"Essence" seems very different than "whatness", to me, but I understand what you are getting at now. Wouldn't the combined definitions of "clear" and "evidence" suffice for the essence of "clear evidence"? If we have gone beyond that, to the more specific, "clear evidence" for a particular thing, God for instance, why are we discussing It this way, instead of throwing evidence against the wall and seeing if it "sticks", so to speak? If we don't even venture into the realm of specific evidence, what business do we have quibbling over the quiddity of said unsaid evidence?
* yeah, I'm sick of it too, but it is a nice shorthand.
My only experience with communication is with "human"
persons. They write letters, phone, e-mail, fax, wire, leave
voice-mail, send agents who can speak for their sponsors. In all of
these cases there is opportunity for a response that can in turn be
acknowledged. If I have doubts about the identity of the real
sender I can receive certification of some sort. If the
communication is of a serious business nature that involves a
monetary transaction I can get certification from objective third
parties. I have prayed frequently every day for 45 years and can
honestly say that I have never received an answer that I could say
is attributable to a "person". I have had favorable things happen
after praying on certain occasions. I have had bad outcomes also
following prayer. I haven't kept a tally so I can't make any
judgment about correlations between prayer and the possibility that
the prayer had an effect on the outcome of important events in my
life.
DUNS: "How do you know? Maybe he has not communicated with or shown
himself to you. Evidently you have never heard divine locution. But
some of us have. What is more, every human seems to possess the
sensus divinitatis. I know that I think I sure possess the SD."
What precisely is "SD"? It is either similar to ordinary
sense experience or it is not. Let us conclude that it is similar
to ordinary sense experience. This would be your strongest position
because people generally trust their senses. Let us suppose that
there is an isolated group of people who occasionally experience a
headache as "a demon hitting the inside of my head". Would this
experience tend to prove that there were in fact demons inside
their heads? Or does the phrase "a demon hitting the inside of my
head" simply describe a feeling that could just as easily have been
described by the word "headache"? There are problems we encounter
when we ascribe unverifiable causes to experiences which are
private to each individual.
To know that "SD" is reliable we would have to test it to see if it
could be used to tell the difference between God and other types of
"communication" the person is sensing instead. How do we test this
supposed "SD"? . We would have to already know that God exists and
is communicating before we could find out whether "SD"
was reliable in detecting such communication. This is because a
test would consist of discovering whether in fact God was
communicating when the theist using his "SD" makes
that assertion. To do that we would have to have some independent
means of knowing that God is communicating. It is hard to believe
a loving, God would expect humans to grope in this manner. If
there is a God the loving thing for him to do would be to make
himself known in an obvious manner.
There is just as much evidence for belief in UFO's as there is for
GOD. Billions of Galaxies show scientifically the likelihood of
intelligent life existing somewhere. Thousands of eyewitness
reports, of abductions, sightings etc. But, it would be foolish to
believe in UFO's before one actually lands and ET steps out and
starts talking and explains where he is from and how his
contraption for getting here works. Oh I get it. Some of us are
just too skeptical to know when aliens are really communicating
with us. We aren't "tuned" in.
DUNS: "How do you know? Maybe he has not communicated with or shown
himself to you. Evidently you have never heard divine locution. But
some of us have. What is more, every human seems to possess the
sensus divinitatis. I know that I think I sure possess the SD."
PROP: What precisely is "SD"? It is either similar to ordinary
sense experience or it is not. Let us conclude that it is similar
to ordinary sense experience. This would be your strongest position
because people generally trust their senses. Let us suppose that
there is an isolated group of people who occasionally experience a
headache as "a demon hitting the inside of my head". Would this
experience tend to prove that there were in fact demons inside
their heads? Or does the phrase "a demon hitting the inside of my
head" simply describe a feeling that could just as easily have been
described by the word "headache"? There are problems we encounter
when we ascribe unverifiable causes to experiences which are
private to each individual.
DUNS: The abbreviation SD refers to the sensus divinitatis. The SD is, according to John Calvin, the inborn tendency to believe in God. God himself has graciously implanted this nisus in us. Calvin writes:
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity."
He adds:
"Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all."
While one cannot verify the sensus divinitatis in an empirical fashion, there are other so-called innate dispositions that cannot be verified in this way either. This fact does not mean that the SD is not an innate disposition. But I bring up other dispositions to point out the fact that non-verifiability does not = invalid or untrue.
I also quote Calvin to show remind you that the SD is not a nisus that is common to one or two people in one or two cultures. In fact, Calvin aptly notes that there "is no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God."
PROP: How do we test this
supposed "SD"? . We would have to already know that God exists and
is communicating before we could find out whether "SD"
was reliable in detecting such communication. This is because a
test would consist of discovering whether in fact God was
communicating when the theist using his "SD" makes
that assertion. To do that we would have to have some independent
means of knowing that God is communicating. It is hard to believe
a loving, God would expect humans to grope in this manner. If
there is a God the loving thing for him to do would be to make
himself known in an obvious manner.
DUNS: Keep in mind that all human tests have their limitations and drawbacks. What is more, a number of lived experiences cannot fittingly be subjected to some type of positivistic test. This point has been argued by Lewis R. Gordon. Gordon contends that the concept of race--that is, the quiddity of race--is outside the purview of science. For while scientific tests may provide sufficient warrant that there is no such thing as "race," lived experience tells us differently. You may say that race can be observed, but God cannot. If you put forth such an objection, however, you would be mistaken. We certainly cannot always observe "race." Depending on how we define the term, we may never observe race simply by beholding the epidermal schemata of various individuals. Tests normally are influenced by a person's presuppositions as well.
As far as God wanting us to grope, read Acts 17:26-31.
Duns the Scot
