Category Archives: Philosophy
Trueblood: Epistemology
“The first kind of knowledge is knowledge of bodies…. The primary way in which bodies are known is by our mental reaction to the sense impressions which bodies make upon our sense organs…
The second kind of knowledge is the knowledge of other minds…. The knowledge of a mind, when it is relatively accurate, is a result of a combination of factors, communication arising in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is through art, sometimes through written or spoken words, sometimes through facial expression. So far as finite minds are concerned, we seem to depend upon physical media for the interpretation of the nature of the object studies, even though the object is not itself physical or metrical.
The third object of knowledge is one’s own mind. In this kind of knowledge, independence of the physical is achieved. In the knowledge of bodies the object is physical, in knowledge of other minds the knowledge is mediated by physical acts, but in knowledge of self, were the same being is both knower and known, the knowledge is immediate. Knowledge of one’s own thoughts proves the possibility of knowledge apart from the senses…. That knowledge of one’s own thoughts, including those of the immediate past, is real knowledge there is no doubt. This is bound to pose a serious problem for those who claim dogmatically that the only possible knowledge is sensory in origin.
A fourth kind of knowledge is knowledge of values and universals….
A fifth possible object of knowledge is God. Here we are dealing with mind, but not finite mind. We are not dealing with a body, in the sense of that which has extension, but we are dealing with Mind capable of creating bodies and, to some extent, revealed in those same bodies. The knowledge of God, if it is possible, may be expected to come, not by the mediation of sound or gesture, but by direct contact of consciousness with consciousness. If it occurs it may be as direct as the knowledge of the self, though it is knowledge of Another….
It is only when we understand clearly that there are many levels of knowledge that we are emancipated from the notion that there is only one pathway to knowledge. The world of reality is so vast and so complex, and our opportunities to make mistakes are so numerous, that we need to employ a rich variety of means of knowledge. It is clear to all of us, when we think about the matter, that the world is far bigger than we know. The world is bigger physically, but it is also vastly richer in content that we have ever imagined….
What is very strange is that many who are devoted to the empirical approach arbitrarily limit veridical experience to certain specified objects of knowledge, such as those which are measurable. When we ask why this arbitrary limit should be set we get no intelligible answer. If knowledge comes ultimately from experience, why should we not, with genuine humility, consider any type of experience which men report, examining each upon its merits instead of making up our minds in advance?
Because the less of humility, in the face of the vastness, complexity and ultimate mystery of the universe, is so much a part of scientific experience, it is not surprising that many practicing scientists are today among the most devout of modern men. Those who know vividly how wrong we have been in the past, when we have dogmatized about what man can and cannot know, have good reason to be careful about setting arbitrary limits. The only justifiable mood is that in which we wait and see and examine, willing to follow the evidence even when it upsets our cherished beliefs.”
–David Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion (1957), 54-58.
Day 4: #SPS2012
The Society for Pentecostal Studies Annual Meeting 2012. The last day of the conference I went to the morning Ecumenical Studies session: “Pentecostal-Mennonite Convergence on the Pneumatological Foundations for Holistic Witness” presented by Jacob Dodson and responded to by Martin Mittelstadt.
I don’t know much about the Mennonite Church USA, but it was interesting to hear about the Missional Vision and Purposeful Plan for Mennonite Church USA which was adopted recently.
Next, I listened to the SPS Presidential Address: “It Seems Good to the Holy Spirit and to Us: The Ecclesial Vocation of the Pentecostal Scholar” read by Cecil (“Mel”) Robeck for the current President of SPS Jeffrey Gros.
This address provided need direction at just the right time, especially in light of the current proposal to change SPS’ Constitution and identity as a society and forum in service to the Church! I won’t get into all the issues right now, but I’ll be sharing more about this in the future.
Then, I sat in on, “Philosophical Reviews of Amos Yong’s Spirit of Creation: The Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal Imagination.” This session was chaired by William Oliverio, and had the following presenters:
- Douglas F. Olena, Evangel University
- Christopher Vena, Toccoa Falls College
- Jack Wisemore, Northwest University
- Frederick Ware, Howard University School of Divinity
- Respondent: Amos Yong, Regent University
Now, this was one long heavy philosophical discussion! While there was so much in play during this session, I just want to note one statement Dr. Yong made that I’ll be chewing on: “I adopt process philosophy, but not process theology.” Hmmm…
I look forward to next year’s joint meeting between the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the Wesleyan Theological Society at Seattle Pacific University (Seattle, WA), March 21-23, 2013! The theme: Holiness. See you there!
T. F. Torrance Audio Lectures
Here is a great series of lectures that Thomas F. Torrance gave in 1981 at Fuller Theological Seminary: http://www.gci.org/av/tftaudio
These are an absolute must to listen to for anyone serious about pursuing a career studying/teaching historical, systematic, or philosophical theology! I warn you that they are very dense, and you’ll be tempted to stop listening but see it through, and really get your mind around Torrance’s thought. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is well worth the intellectual exercise!
Most of the lectures consistently deal with metaphysics and epistemology while touching on practically all areas of theology: A history of science and theology, The doctrine of God, Trinity, Incarnation, Creation, Atonement, Calvinism, Holy Spirit, Ecclesiology, Sacraments, etc.
He provides a great critique of Calvinism in Lecture 4:
“By reading back into God temporal, causal, and logical relations from our experience in this world, Calvinism was forced to connect the relative apparent distinctions: between believing and unbelieving, obedient and disobedient, to the absolute decree of God. That’s to say, it interpreted the distinctions between ‘believing’ and ‘unbelieving’ or the ‘apparent’ and ‘non-apparent,’ in terms of the absolute framework of space and time which constitute the all controlling mind or sensorium of God in the Newtonian language.
Now this entailed an ultimate ‘No’ and an ultimate ‘Yes’ in God. In fact it involved a staggeringly schizophrenic concept of God. And out of this comes the doctrine of limited atonement on the one hand or universalism on the other hand. Both twin heresies of the one fundamental mistake. Now the problem we have here, is that of logical-izing and causal-izing relations with God in which we are found to be shut up either to universal necessary salvation on the one hand, or to limited salvation on the other hand….
When the grace of election is interpreted within a dualist and a determinist framework of thought governed by the primacy of number, for example the Newtonian concepts of space and time and logical causal connection in which time and motion are transmuted into mathematical and logical relations, then the basic equilibrium of thought is disrupted, and the result is a soft contradiction and a disruption in the doctrine of election or predestination. In fact, in that context, the notion of predestination is actually turned on its head, for it now becomes a sort of mythological projection into God of culture-conditioned and creaturely connections, namely the kind of temporal-causal connections which we think obtain within the creaturely realm. And that is, as I said, is an intolerable anthropolization of God.”
Kim: Time, Eternity, and the Trinity
Eunsoo Kim, Time, Eternity, and the Trinity: A Trinitarian Analogical Understanding of Time and Eternity (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010).
I have not read anything by Eunsoo Kim before, and I’m enjoying it so far.
Anyone have any thoughts on the book?
Table of Contents:
1 Introduction
2 Biblical Understandings of Time and Eternity
3 Time and Eternity in Classical Theism
4 Contemporary Philosophical and Scientific Debates on the Nature of Time
5 Contemporary Theological Debates on God’s Eternity and Its Relation to Time
6 Time, Eternity, and the Trinity in the Theology of Karl Barth
7 Time, Eternity, and the Trinity in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar
8 Toward an Alternative Trinitarian Analogical Understanding of Time and God’s Eternity
9 Conclusion
Objectivity & Subjectivity
My friend wrote this as a Facebook post:
“Objectivity is a myth”
I wrote this comment:
[My friend], you said: I get so weary of peoples’ dogmatic opinions…such as…”The universe rotates around the Earth. Let’s burn anyone who thinks otherwise…”
I agree with you, people’s dogmatic opinions should be discarded if they are suggesting a truth claim that is simply false. But if they are speaking the truth, I really don’t have a problem with people being “dogmatic.” Now, violence is another issue, whether you’re dogmatic or not, violence doesn’t solve anything, and actually dehumanizes both the perpetrators and the victims.
And, here’s a question that everyone can objectively know the answer to, and if you attempt any kind of subjective answer you’ll be wrong (and I don’t feel any arrogance in saying that): “What’s one plus one?” It’s interesting that we as humans appear to grasp on to objectivity when it comes to mathematics, laws of logic, or just encountering brute objective reality.
Here’s an illustration of encountering brute objective reality using your own illustration regarding earth and the Sun: People used to claim that the “Sun revolved around the earth.” Normally we would say that was an understandable subjective knowledge (an observable phenomenon from one perspective). But then, historically we gained a new perspective and observed that actually the earth revolves around the Sun. Would anyone say that this new perspective is just subjective knowledge, or merely subjectively true? Isn’t there a point where time tested scientific investigation can bring us to encounter the brute reality and objective truth that indeed the earth revolves around the Sun?
Here, it seems that a limited degree of objectivity is in fact attainable. This is not a claim of exhaustive/comprehensive knowledge or divine knowledge, just human knowledge (thinking upon themselves as a Subject/Object within an objectively real universe). It doesn’t mean I know all about matter, gravity, and all the interactions of unseen cosmic forces, but to a limited degree we can objectively know about objective reality.
So, yes, objectivity is a myth if you define it as you did: “Objectivity requires seeing without a lens,” since we are human beings, we are Subjects with minds. But I would rather say this (and I think it is more accurate): “Objectivity without subjectivity is a myth.” This preserves the possibility for human objectivity (in a limited and finite sense), as we encounter objective reality.
Therefore, I propose the following to be upheld at the same time:
1) “Objectivity is not a myth.”
2) “Objectivity without subjectivity is a myth.”
I guess, I view human beings as both Subjects and Objects in the universe (not merely Objects, and not merely Subjects), and therefore capable of both objectivity and subjectivity in regards to knowing truths.
Superficially speaking, it seems like modernism attempted to view the universe “objectively,” including human beings as mere Objects in an objective universe. Then postmodernism comes along (what ever that means) and swings the pendulum the other way viewing the universe “subjectively” with human beings as mere Subjects creating and communally participating in their own diverse realities. I think both are extremes!
Interestingly, I remember reading an ancient text (the Bible) where people viewed human beings as BOTH physical beings (Objects) AND spiritual beings (Subjects). As a result, our methods of knowing reality must integrate objectivity and subjectivity in a holistic manner with out separation or compromising one over the other!
Bonhoeffer: New Humanity
“Only in Christ do human beings know themselves as God’s creatures; in Adam they were creator and creature all at once. In order to know itself as a creature of God, the old human being has to have died and the new one arisen, whose essence it is to live in disregard of self and wholly in contemplation of Christ. As those living in Christ, the new human beings know themselves in identity with the old human beings that have passed through death—as God’s creatures” (151).
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Act and Being: Transcendental Philosophy and Ontology In Systematic Theology, ed. Wayne W. Floyd, trans. Martin Rumscheidt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 151.
Divine Providence
I just came across William Lane Craig’s podcast on the new book coming out which he contributed to: Four Views on Divine Providence (Zondervan, 2011). Warning, the podcast is a bit technical and philosophical so if you’re not familiar with philosophical and theological terminology you may get lost.
If you interested here are the podcast contents:
- Response to Greg Boyd’s Open Theism: 6:13-15:14 min.
- Response to Calvinism’s Determinism: 15:14-23:20 min.
And, here are links to Greg Boyd’s responses on his blog:
