 |
Very Brief on Skepticism
Skepticism, in contrast, can be a worldview, or within a worldview.
Cited, in-part, below:
Britannica
skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions.
Britannica
skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions.
From ancient times onward skeptics have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, scientists, and theologians.
Skepticism does not equal doubt
Skepticism is not merely doubt, it is its own set of premises and conclusions.
A good friend mentioned to me the news in regard to Joshua Harris and another friend, as well, posted on this issue. Mr. Harris in recent years attended an event at Northview Community Church where I am a member, as well I am a member at TriCity Church, a related church. But, I missed the event.
Sojourners July 19 2019
Cited
Villarreal: You say in the documentary that there are a lot of people who want you to throw out everything that was kind of the basis for your book. But I'm curious when you say “everything,” do you mean your belief in Christianity as a whole or about premarital sex in general? I'm curious what you include in that.
Harris: I think that there's a push by some people to say being sex positive means — the kind of the historical sexual ethic related to sex outside of marriage, related to homosexuality, is basically laid aside, and embracing a healthy view of sex means just accepting all that as fine within the Christian tradition. …
I do think though that, for me, in that change of interpretation of such a fundamental level when it comes to sexuality, it's just hard for me to ...
In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent. I think that I probably need to engage with some of those people — like I have people send me their e-books showing why premarital sex is fine, and I just don't have the energy right now.
Like, I do not want to read your book. I do not want to. I do not want to engage in a massive, you know, theological expedition to think about all these things. So it just sounds really exhausting to me, honestly. But I think what you saw in that moment in the film is it is a real struggle for me. I'm really struggling with — I think that rethinking some of these things and having had my faith look so specific for so long that now as I'm questioning those specifics, it feels like I'm questioning my entire faith.
In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent.
---
For me, sexual ethics is not my primary concern in the determination of a worldview...
a priori/a posteriori
Preface
Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).
Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595)
Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism. Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).
Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). This could lead to scientism…
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).
BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).
This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God.
But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.
BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts.
It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose. Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).
First Cause: Philosophy of Religion and Theology
Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem for these approaches.
As time, space, and matter are finite and cannot be their own cause, this would cause a vicious regress. A vicious regress does not solve its own problem. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived. A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(whether a vicious regress is still considered a logical problem or not). Please see my archives for articles on vicious regress.
Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical.
Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view; although I fully believe in the Biblical texts as in divinely inspired original autographs. I reason there are extant reasonably accurate copies that provide the biblical worldview and theology that God intended.
Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause. First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.
Bible: Biblical Studies and Theology
It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions.
The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among
For me, sexual ethics is not my primary concern in the determination of a worldview...
a priori/a posteriori
Preface
Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).
Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595)
Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism. Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).
Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). This could lead to scientism…
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).
BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).
This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God.
But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.
BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts.
It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose. Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).
First Cause: Philosophy of Religion and Theology
Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem for these approaches.
As time, space, and matter are finite and cannot be their own cause, this would cause a vicious regress. A vicious regress does not solve its own problem. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived. A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(whether a vicious regress is still considered a logical problem or not). Please see my archives for articles on vicious regress.
Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical.
Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view; although I fully believe in the Biblical texts as in divinely inspired original autographs. I reason there are extant reasonably accurate copies that provide the biblical worldview and theology that God intended.
Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause. First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.
Bible: Biblical Studies and Theology
It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions.
The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among
(New American Standard Bible/NASB)
Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.
Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward. The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.
---
In light of the Harris interview, the part I cited:.
As all persons are finite and sinful (Romans) we all can have doubts. But doubts about Christianity do not form a reasonable worldview alone. A worldview must deal with premises and conclusions to prove as reasonable and true. In other words, rejecting Christianity in doubt, in regard to sexual ethics, is problematic, unless a more reasonable and true worldview can be presented by premises and conclusions, in its place.
Practical Theology
I have been single my entire adult life and have found the pool of relatable Christians within the evangelical church very limited and frustrating (but my present church offers new possibilities).
But, I do not embrace and present my worldview primarily based on sexual ethics, my sexual sufferings, nor the sexual sufferings of others. As noted, there are larger issues at stake in presenting a reasonable worldview as opposed to sexual ethics, which are important, but not the most important premises to be presented in regard to a worldview.
Doubt is not a worldview.
Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.
Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward. The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.
---
In light of the Harris interview, the part I cited:.
As all persons are finite and sinful (Romans) we all can have doubts. But doubts about Christianity do not form a reasonable worldview alone. A worldview must deal with premises and conclusions to prove as reasonable and true. In other words, rejecting Christianity in doubt, in regard to sexual ethics, is problematic, unless a more reasonable and true worldview can be presented by premises and conclusions, in its place.
Practical Theology
I have been single my entire adult life and have found the pool of relatable Christians within the evangelical church very limited and frustrating (but my present church offers new possibilities).
But, I do not embrace and present my worldview primarily based on sexual ethics, my sexual sufferings, nor the sexual sufferings of others. As noted, there are larger issues at stake in presenting a reasonable worldview as opposed to sexual ethics, which are important, but not the most important premises to be presented in regard to a worldview.
Doubt is not a worldview.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
