Mr. Tentative,
It is hardly becoming of a good philosopher to consider any such discourse as a waste of time, and for one such as yourself to imply that such is the case, leads me to believe that you have not put as much effort or thought into this as would be required to render the discussion worthwhile to you.
I would normally not respond to such a post as yours. Not because I would consider such a response a waste of time, but rather, due to the truth of my Christian worldview indicating your own fallen nature and inability to respond positively to the truth of Christ.
(See John 6:44. In addition, if you would like further scriptural support for the total depravity of man, please email me, and I’ll be happy to discuss the relevant scriptures with you!)
I do feel a response to you is warranted however, so that the thoughts I have articulated in my above posts can be further clarified.
You say this:
You present knowing as some sort of absolute, which is common among religious ‘thinkers’.
As was the case with Mr. Smears, I can here only assume that you must be referring to “religious” in the colloquial sense, and are excluding yourself from this class. However, if you are excluding yourself from this class, then you by necessity must be including yourself in the class of those who do not present knowing as some sort of absolute.
If you are a member of those who do not present knowing as some sort of absolute, then you cannot present the truth of the quoted statement as applying in any real objective way to anyone else, since by your own implicit position, you couldn’t know if it were true or or not.
You’ve adopted a self refuting position, as can be even more readily understood from your next statement:
You might be surprised to find that there are a few of us who believe that all “knowing” is both provisional and conditional.
Do you KNOW that knowing is both provisional and conditional, or is this statement provisional and conditional as well? The question could also be asked under what provisional circumstance is knowledge subject to, since you wouldn’t be able to know the provision without the knowledge to know it by! Under what conditions is your above quote not knowledgeable or applicable to the truth?
Those leaning more toward pragmatism or relativism, and are inclined to accept contradictions such as the ones Mr. Tentative points out, must realize that by accepting inconsistency, they really are NOT accepting inconsistency. If one wishes to be inconsistent, then he must also be inconsistent in his inconsistency!
In short, you’re apriori assumption of absolute knowing is denied.
Yes sir, I am used to arbitrary denials of my position.
True believers of whatever stripe have two suppositions in place: First, that absolute certainty is not only possible, but that their particular color expresses in fine detail that certainty.
As stated above, I can only assume that Mr. Tentative rejects this position for himself, and as such would be denying that his statement could have any objective meaning at all. It seems that Mr. Tentative is certain of this truth, and he also appears to be expressing in fine detail his certainty of this position. Ironic aint it?
Second, true believers live in a closed system. There is nothing outside their particular box.
As I’ve indicated in my above response to Mr. Smears, Christianities “box” is the only “box” which provides epistemic certainty, and all other “boxes” must at some point reach into the Christians “box” and borrow philosophical capital in order to be consistent.
They “know” about everything from birth to death and beyond, and anyone who would dispute or question the contents of their little box are automatically assigned condemnation as ‘fools’ (thank you, Mr. shotgun) or infidels in need of quick release to hell.
Mr. Tentative, this really is unbecoming of someone inclined to civil discourse. I’m sure you’re educated enough in Christian theology to realize how you have mischaracterized the Christian position here in such an ungenerous way.
I’ll let the other misrepresentations slip by for now, and instead focus on one of your more blatant examples which is the most relevant to our current discussion.
The Christian does not “know about everything,” as you indicated. However, it is possible in the Christian worldview to know SOME things.
An example of arbitrariness would be claiming that truth is provisional and conditional. If such were actually true, then how could you indeed KNOW it were true? (Actually it is a self refuting position that cannot be true without the acceptance of contradiction.)
No sir, the Christian does not know all things, but since our worldview is true, then it IS possible to know some things, something that no other worldview can claim with any consistency.
So if you find yourself in the need of religion, pick your poison…
Christ says that only those whom he draws to himself shall know him. Any other position you arbitrarily decide upon will be logically inconsistent and arbitrary.
Thanks for your post, and I look forward to any further discussion!
Love in the Lamb,