Who knows?
How / where would you guys begin to answer this question:
What is knowledge when it is not rooted in Jehovah, God?
posted by Anonymous at 11:05 AM
6.02.2004
About Me
- Name: e
- Location: Notre Dame, (what the hell am I doing in) Indiana
hi there! thank you for visiting the old, dark, brooding version of this blog. the new, bright, still-brooding version is at uscrewtape.wordpress.com
Previous Posts
- dem books
- On Loan
- I'll never have a million dollars...
- If I had a million dollars...
- If the mind were a flower, I'd be a weed
- going to carolina in my mind
- Alternativity
- Getting Engaged
- stupid beanspiller
- technohell
12 Comments:
not to be too platonic about the whole thing, but is there any knowledge that is not somehow rooted in God?
lewis' train of thought here: all good things originate from God, thought is good, thought contains knowledge, therefore thought originated from God, therefore knowledge originated in (is rooted in/has its source in) God. knowledge can, like anything else, be twisted away from its original purpose.
thats not the real question here.
the real question is whether or not jesus can microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself cannot eat it. when you can answer that, THEN you'll have better understanding on the nature of knowledge.
or you could just watch the simpsons...
Anonymous sounds suspiciously like my old friend Seth.
But assuming that question, which in itself is nonsense and therefore unanswerable, I would say to Brad that Paul's use of Knowledge in that phrase (gnosis? in the greek) is different than how I believed you were using it in the original question.
In other words, Paul seems to be talking about secret knowledge, cultic knowledge, and saying it doesn't have a role in the Church. There is no way he could also be lumping in any and all things knowable or true.... in fact "what ever is good, whatever is pure..." those things require knowledge of Good and Evil--an important form of knowledge. So surely Paul is not lumping in, say knowledge of the theory of gravity or knowledge about God's character with knowledge of cultic customs practiced by Hellenistic perverters of the gospel.
At least, that's what makes sense to me.
And thanks for the Simpsons reminder, Anonymous (Seth)
before we float away into abstraction, lemme ask a few questions:
(1) do you know that Anonymous is "Annie"? Who is Annie?
(2) what is the end point you are trying to reach? are you asking whether or not all knowledge is always negative or has a negative essence or component because it puffs up?
(3) are we both using "knowledge" the same way? i was assuming knowledge implied "apprehension of things knowable in whole or in part". is that also what you mean?
(4) if we reject the non-biblical dualism of knowledge split into "fact" and "truth"--at times mutually supportive, at times mutually antagonistic--could we still hold that Paul is using "knowledge" in two different ways (e.g., secret vs. universally known)?
(5) the reason i ask #4 is because in verse 7 of 1 Cor. 8, Paul seems to be using "knowledge" positively: "...not everyone knows this...", which seems to suggest that Paul does know and shares that knowledge with an exclusive bunch of people and that Paul believes that knowledge to be superior in one way or another than the "not knowing" of those who consider the food sacrificed before an idol to be unclean.
(6) when Lewis discusses knowledge, is he assuming multiple kinds of knowledge (like your Spanish example)? If so, is that very different than Paul was using it?
well, some of us think that god appears to be withholding the knowledge of his very existance and therefore think that maybe this "knowledge" should have a better name. like imagination. or myth. maybe a cross between the two wrapped in tradition?
if jesus can't microwave that burrito so hot or god cannot build that rock so big, then perhaps we have ran into the logic wall with how we can even attempt to perceive such a thing.
i think homer would agree....
Annie it is then.
Annie: nonsense applied to spiritual subject matter is still nonsense x = not x is by definition nonsense.
Homer: d'oh!
Bd: Take a look at that passage and let me know what I'm missing (esp. since I don't know Greek).
nonsense eh? funny how sectarian allegiance instills a sense of superiority & privilege, while those not part of the spiritual elite are relegated to outer darkness...
btw- i assume when the question is asked "What is knowledge when it is not rooted in Jehovah, God?" that you are opening a door for non believers to give their 2 cents. guess not..
don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.
Annie: don't take me the wrong way--i am definitely not prioritizing certain kinds of knowlege as "superior" and other as "inferior"; nor relegating anyone to outer darkness. i am simply pointing out that the rock/burrito question is not a valid/serious one in questioning the existence/omnipotence of God, etc.
the question is a good one and i think we need all perspectives. my perspective, which i think falls directly in line with the "non-believer" Plato is that there is no knowledge that does not have its root in a supreme being but there is a twisting in knowledge due to the distance between that SB and us so that, like a radio out at the edge of reception, we sometimes get a signal and sometimes it is just fuzz.
i'm not sure that you have to name your SB to discuss this, Annie, although the explanation does fall in line with historical Judaism, Christianity, Islam, as well as most of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratics on down. assuming you are willing to hang with the discussion for a while, you'll find there is not an elitest position being advocated, so far as i can tell...although it might indeed appear sectarian if you're not willing to hang in there.
alrighty.. sorry for being a bit rash.
brad, it sounds to me like you're saying that since we can conceive of a god in the first place, it must therefore be true. this is like trying to prove that the bible is true because it says so itself. see kissing hanks arse-
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/d/r/dryfoo/www/Spritz-yule/hanks-ass.html
also, your reframing of my point is not quite on the mark.. the way i like to ask the question(s); is there objective truth? if so, what is its nature? is it objective 'truth' or 'law'?
or a combo?
some folks might believe them one in the same, but it depends on what your presuppositions are (and i'm really not one for paradoxes).
for example; i accept the big bang. when this explosion took place it set off a chain of events that have forged elements into what we observe now, including ourselves. cause and effect. if there is no objective truth, would it then be an objective truth that there is no objective truth? or is truth simply how nature sorted itself after the big bang and here we are sitting in our confines trying to take in the cosmos and come to terms with what we are? (notice how that excludes me from the truth-is-subjective crowd... i contend that we are all having an objective experience, subjectively)
that brings me to science and the discovery of truth through its means. true science imagines everything and accepts the true and false answers that rain down from there. for me, that is exactly where the magic of life is. i simply don't need a god dangling a carrot in front of my face in order to lead me to "knowledge" or whatever. if i do, then i can begin what is known as making shit up… it’s just too swimmy and interpretive for my tastes.
sorry, but more times than not when men claim to have heard knowledge from god (or any kind of transient know it all), dead bodies have resulted. bad things happen. knowledge from god has proven itself faulty way too many times to be considered reliable.
remember, nothing fails like prayer!
let me admit, first off, that i'm not smart enough to sort through all the points/counter-points.
let me also admit that i'm really enjoying the attempt.
if it's okay and either of you are still following this once it disappears from the "main page", could we make the entire conversation a whole blog post (copy & paste) and keep going? i just don't want to lose it simply because it's inconvenient to find it.
also also, annie/seth/whoever, thanks for hanging in there with this conversation. brad, thanks for keeping it going.
My Ha'penny's Worth:
1) Brad your premise that man is above or greater or bigger than logic i think needs some examination. if God made logic and we operate by it at times, than maybe it is a thing parallel to humans rather than over or under. I'm guessing this is what Annie means by law and/or truth--it is something that humans "tap into" but do not dictate it, nor are we subservient to it. Is that a correct assumption?
2) Annie, are you saying that there is no controling, organizing force to the universe at all? That processes are wholly random or accidental? If so, how do we account for things like the Big Bang in which an essentially discrete packet of energy infinitely small (I don't understand this myself) becomes the entire universe? I'm not Stephen Hawking, but I have read Brief History... and don't for the life of me remember if he tackled this question at all. If "laws" like equilibrium and dynamics exist, where did they come from?
3) Brad, seems like all knowledge must be relational, in that there has to be an observed and an observer. But is this exactly what you meant by "relational"?
4) If we're talking about science alongside of knowledge, we have to discuss Polanyi's concept of "Personal knowledge." If we're not going down this route, forget I brought it up.
How long can a comment be...?
please do repost this thread. (my vote anyway)
to answer your questions-
i actually AM saying there is a controlling force that runs the universe. i just don't think its a knowing god. for lack of a better term (which i wish there was) i will call it the laws of physics. (as we perceive them up till now) i also don't accept the notion that if there is no knowing force, or god, that the cosmos must somehow be chaotic. its not. the universe that we live in is very diverse (galaxies collide.. planets the size of jupiter have 7 day YEARS whipping around their sun with a fury that makes the spider ride at your local amusement park look tame, stars explode and reform new ones etc..) but the elements take shape and form life (in rare instances).
is it a miracle? you betcha. but remember, a thousand stars forming out of one huge one that exploded is a miracle too. it has a life all its own. ours just comprehends itself and therefore, i believe the notion of god, or the gods, have has arisen from that ability. not the other way around.
funny thing here is that folks like us are in some ways 2 different sides of the same coin. we just don't know if its heads or tails until were dead.
by the way e, if you want to comprehend how the universe was born out of little, look no further than the atomic bomb. only like way way huger than that ;)
Oh, and as far as Polanyi's concept goes.. I found this on the Harvard website & thought it was interesting-
"Polanyi’s explanation is that we know more than we can tell, or we tacitly know when we have hit upon a good problem or a great discovery. If Polanyi had left it at this, we may have accepted the explanation, believing, along with Polanyi, that there is a reasonable explanation for our knowing more than we can tell but as yet we only tacitly know the explanation. However, Polanyi attempts an explanation. “We can account for this capacity of ours to know more than we can tell if we believe in the presence of an external reality with which we can establish contact. This I do.” It is this apparently unjustified explanation that throws a shadow of sorts on Polanyi’s work, and is perhaps one of the reasons why he has never really been accepted as a true philosopher. This flaw in his argument notwithstanding, it must be recognized that wherever research is done on tacit knowledge, and no matter how distinct the research is from Polanyi’s own work, more often than not, the research makes reference to Polanyi’s work—in particular the idea of our knowing more than we can tell. Polanyi, indisputably, was a pioneering researcher in the area of tacit knowing."
Polanyi falls into the same trap most philosophers fall into, in that he attributes any mystery, or as of yet unknowable thing to a supreme being of knowledge. However, it becomes more and more obvious that the knowledge is simply there, we just need to discover and translate it into our own understanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home