A priori & A posteriori

Scotland-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Interesting discussion after main business hours at work where I emphasized that not all knowledge was empirical knowledge.

Here is edited Blogging and PhD material that is hopefully relevant.

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). 

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). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

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, 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.

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.

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.

Edinburgh 1995

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).

From a Christian perspective, God through Scriptural religious history and 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.

Kant criticized and limited the scope of traditional metaphysical thought, he also sought to defend against empiricism’s claim of the possibility of universal and necessary knowledge which he called a priori knowledge, because no knowledge derived from experience, a posteriori knowledge, could justify a claim to universal and necessary validity.

Guyer and Wood explain that Kant sought to defend the scientific approach to the acquisition of knowledge against skeptics that dismissed rigorous arguments in favor of ‘common sense.’ Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2)

Kant concludes The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence.

The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).

Importantly Kant thought it legitimate for one to postulate the noumena realm in a ‘negative sense’ meaning things as they may be independently or how they are represented, but not noumena in the ‘positive sense’ which would be things based on pure reason alone. Instead, noumena categories were only useful by applying them to empirical data structured in forms of intuition.

The concept of noumena, according to Kant, was bound to the limit of pretension of sensibility and reason, and therefore only negative noumenon was of intellectual use. Noumena in its negative sense are that which is not an object of sense intuition. Kant rejects concepts of positive noumena based on pure reason. Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).

Counter

Conclusion

Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology, which would be considered by certain scholars to simply use pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished. Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations.

This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approaches to Christianity, which do not rely primarily on philosophical deductions, but in supernatural revelation of God through empirical sensations, such as prophets, Christ, the apostles and scribes.

My conclusion here, which I realize some will debate, is that Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God as discussed, but is rather coming through the authors and players within his Bible, which are reasoned to be divinely guided by God. In other words: Natural theology, or another term, perhaps natural philosophy, at points can be reasonable philosophically as secondary support for theism and Christianity.

Natural theology does not reveal the God of the Bible specifically. Revelation and Scripture as historical religious history reveals the God of the Bible. Therefore, Christianity is not primarily based on metaphysical speculation or pure reason. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in 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 (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. 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.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

John Calvin On Free Will

Versailles-trekearth

Edited from

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

In the case of human sin, John Calvin did not believe that God used hard determinism as in forcing or coercing human sin, and nor do I.

I agree that God can use human sin for the greater good, yet human beings have limited free will and freely sin by choice within a sinful nature.

Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose.

Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or hard determining one to do so.

I reason the problem of evil is, in large measure, a human problem. I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces people to commit individual sin. People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good. This is not the most satisfying doctrine I suppose, but Biblically and philosophically valid nonetheless. This concept will be discussed throughout my thesis.

God was not the antecedent (preceding cause) of sin in the sense of God coercing or forcing people to commit sinful acts. God does not use hard determinism to cause people to sin as if they were sinning by compulsion and not freely. However, it should be pointed out that in another more strictly philosophical sense, as God is sovereign over all events, he is the primary cause of evil and sin and he determines and allows human beings to freely sin as the secondary cause.

In that sense God is the antecedent of sin. However, God's motives remain pure in all that he wills.

Matin Serein, France-trekearth

Edited from

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

John Calvin’s (1543)(1998) theology holds to a strong view on God’s sovereignty and to a limited view of human freedom.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

He suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

There is a traditional Christian and Reformed concept and theology that the Holy Spirit is God and does the work that only God can do. The Holy Spirit works directly upon a human mind, in a sense remaking a person and creating a person after the image of Christ.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

Biologically Impossible?

Facebook

Bizpac June 3 2015

In light of recent news this is something to ponder on...

A friend of mine has a co-worker that had his penis removed and had reassignment surgery and now years later regrets it. I hold to a Reformed position on corruption which includes the biological and spiritual within present humanity but to assume the fall has effected one so much that his/her sex is scientifically wrong is very questionable indeed.

With the Biblical concept of a fall from Genesis, Scripture documents the idea of God creating male and female in the image and likeness of God; with the creation of the sexes, gender is definitive and definite and cannot be entirely altered. This is as well a New Testament concept (Romans 1-6).

Cited

Former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry: Being transgender is a ‘mental disorder . . . biologically impossible’

Cited

'The former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital is pouring rain on the Bruce Jenner “Call Me Caitlyn” parade that’s sure to have the former Olympic athlete’s cheerleaders steaming.

Not only does Dr. Paul R. McHugh consider changing sexes “biologically impossible,” he thinks being what is popularly called “transgender” these days is actually a “mental disorder.” McHugh, who has authored six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, made the statements in a piece he penned for the Wall Street Journal that argued surgery is not the solution for patients who want to live life as the opposite sex. Such people, he wrote, suffer from a “disorder of assumption” in believing they can choose their sex.'

Cited

'He also cited a study that said transgendered people who have reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people,'

Cited

'He went on to write that changing sexes is impossible and that what transgendered people actually do is “become feminized men or masculinized women.” 

While there are scientists who disagree, it is important to question whether health professionals, politicians and the media are doing more harm than good by enabling people who believe they were born the wrong sex to go to such extremes. For millennia, the first rule of Western medicine has been summed up as “do no harm.” There’s a reason for that.'

The Teleological

Dublin: trekearth

From my PhD

Bloesch defines teleological as a word coming from the Greek telos, or end, where the emphasis is on goals and consequences. Bloesch (1987: 19).

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

Post PhD

Blackburn also describes teleology from the Greek as 'telos' end. It is the study of the ends or purposes of things.  It is described as a Aristotelian view of nature and ethics and is also a view and doctrine of the Christian tradition. Blackburn (1996: 374).

From Teleology August 24, 2014

Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791).

Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791). Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.

Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791). Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791). Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791). Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791). In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.

The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions.

God would be the first and primary cause of all things being the infinite, first cause. Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.