My Faith: Hard-Core Common Sense

[Jeff Lebowski]

You didn't really miss anything. I'll elaborate as I go!

If you could limit the academic jargon and put it in more accessible language, some of us would appreciate it. TIA.

[Surfah]

If you could limit the academic jargon and put it in more accessible language, some of us would appreciate it. TIA.

I'll second this. Babs did a good job of breaking it down for me though.

[clackamascoug]

What is the Moon made of....?

90% of us would say "green cheese," but we know that not to be true. How does this predisposition answer fit into a presupposed x ?

(My attempt here is to understand, using a baseline I'm familiar with.)

[creekster]

I'll elaborate in future posts, but Descartes was right to begin philosophy with the assertion of "I am."

My point was that the fact of consciousness is about the only thing I could think of that was universally accepted and could not be disputed (although even its contours are not universally agreed upon).

[woot]

It's obvious that the sun goes around the earth, and that the diversity of life could never be explained through natural means. Yet, everyone was wrong about both of those things. Let's not conflate mass ignorance with common sense.

I'm not a fan of the concept of common sense to begin with, as it doesn't seem to be very common.

[creekster]

It's obvious that the sun goes around the earth, and that the diversity of life could never be explained through natural means. Yet, everyone was wrong about both of those things. Let's not conflate mass ignorance with common sense.

I'm not a fan of the concept of common sense to begin with, as it doesn't seem to be very common.

This is a good point. It is obvious to us that the sun goes around the earth but from a common sense POV it looks pretty obvious that the sun is the one moving.

[Babs]

What is the Moon made of....?

90% of us would say "green cheese," but we know that not to be true. How does this predisposition answer fit into a presupposed x ?

(My attempt here is to understand, using a baseline I'm familiar with.)

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about analyzing human behavior to isolate certain axioms that we are clearly all acting on, regardless of whether we profess them or not.

[creekster]

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about analyzing human behavior to isolate certain axioms that we are clearly all acting on, regardless of whether we profess them or not.

But how can we know what we are acting on? Like the movement of the sun, it may seem axiomatic to us but it may be a result of genetics or environmental in ways we don't understand.

[Babs]

But how can we know what we are acting on? Like the movement of the sun, it may seem axiomatic to us but it may be a result of genetics or environmental in ways we don't understand.

agreed.

[wuapinmon]

Yes, and like a good professor you are anticipating my as-of-yet unstated conclusion about God and foreknowledge of human acts.

Well, thanks for the compliment, and that's where I thought you were headed.

Does this also mean you discard omniscience in God? And is faith therefore inconsistent with omniscience?

I think the notion of 'hard-core common sense' is attractive but it also seems a bit too convenient, if you know what I mean. And escapes the need for evidence by its own definition, which is a neat trick.

Also, don't be so quick to judge anyone's 'unreasonable' leap to metaphysics. I don't think one can assume that what is posted is necessarily the complete thought process.

Great questions--I'll take them up in a later post.

creek, I'm not speaking for him, but I'm guessing that he's going to follow a view of God's omniscience (can anyone provide a Biblical assertion of His omniscience?) as following one of these paths:

1. Occam, God's foreknowledge is a paradox. If Judas, of his own free will, hadn't betrayed Jesus, then Zechariah (11:12-13) never would've prophesied of it.

2. Gersonides, God knows all possible outcomes, but he can't know which one you will choose. Later refined by B.H. Roberts and Blake Ostler to address these issues in Mormonism. Gersonides’ ideas hearken back to pre-Platonist ideas about the limited omniscience of God. While he sees astrological influence on sub-lunar entities as an influential causal force affecting actions--for example the tides rise and fall due to the gravitational pull of the moon--he maintains that humans are nonetheless free to choose, independent of (yet somewhat influenced by) outside forces. Concerning divine foreknowledge, Gersonides posits that God can fathom all of the possible variables and outcomes of human action, but he cannot know the inevitabilities of free agent choices.

3. Maimonides, God has perfect foreknowledge, and humans have free will. The mortal mind can't comprehend how the two can be reconciled, but trust God. This is basically what most Mormons believe, even though it doesn't jibe with our Scriptures.

4. Alfred North Whitehead's process theology, God's will is accomplished by persuasion. As the universe "evolves" then God changes too. Since he's isn't omnipotent, he has to work toward enlarging good as much as the rest of us. Hence, he is love.

5. Blake Ostler's findings that free will and absolute infallible foreknowledge are "incompatible." Ostler posits (don't hold me to this, it's been like 6 years since I read his book) that a God who experiences "eternal progression" based on how we act, cannot really have infallible foreknowledge. The risk of giving us free will to work for salvation vs. Lucifer's "I'll save 'em all" plan seem to show that God can't know everything. I hope Ostler will forgive me if I've butchered his argument.

I'm guessing that SIEQ will completely reject:

1. Calvinism (he already has)
2. Spinozaism (pantheism, but not sure about panentheism)
3. Molinism (for sure!)
4. Aquinasism (God exists outside of time) Aquinas was a firm believer in free will, and in the first part of his Summa Theologica, question 83, article 1, after citing the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 15, he writes:

Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things.

Human choice would not be limited by God’s knowledge in this example because the future does not exist to him--all things are present. Boethius, a 6th Century theologian and early advocate for the atemporal divine condition, wrote:

God has a condition of ever-present eternity, His knowledge, which passes over every change of time, embracing infinite lengths of past and future, views in its own direct comprehension everything as though it were taking place in the present.

Therefore, God could have foreknowledge of what is to be because his reckoning of time is not linear but eternal. In this sense Judas is free to betray Jesus, but because of his divinity, Jesus knows outside of the present what Judas will do.

5. Pelagius (free will exists as long as we obey--this isn't an entirely accurate description of Pelagius' belief)

[Rosebud]

You didn't really miss anything. I'll elaborate as I go!

Thanks SIEQ.

Conclusion--If you accept my premise (which you may not, although I will argue that it is a reasonable one), determinism and relativism are out, and room for what I call "faith" is in.

What I'm interested in is why, in your mind, determinism and relativism being out necessarily means that faith is in. How are you defining faith?

[Babs]

creek, I'm not speaking for him, but I'm guessing that he's going to follow a view of God's omniscience (can anyone provide a Biblical assertion of His omniscience?) as following one of these paths:

I vote 4.

[wuapinmon]

But how can we know what we are acting on? Like the movement of the sun, it may seem axiomatic to us but it may be a result of genetics or environmental in ways we don't understand.

Thomas Nagel explains that the famous “brain in a vat” example of a conscience that believes it is a person, but is actually just an organ being stimulated by a scientist to believe it sees and perceives the world (much like Descartes’ evil genius theory) is flawed because, “Perhaps I can’t even think the truth about what I am, because I lack the necessary concepts and my circumstances make it impossible for me to acquire them!’”

[wuapinmon]

We've had a similar discussion before:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2199

[wuapinmon]

So, if we're going to debate how much God involves himself in the world, then, depending on your beliefs, WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/18/foo...ex.html?hpt=T2