Where are oughts derived from?
The options I see are through deterministic factors. Also, as part of a divine spark in every person through which we know. Written in holy books.
Any other ideas?
Anyone have anything they want to add to the above or dispute it?
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Epistemology is just the study of knowledge, and what is to count as a form of knowledge.[/quote]Not quite. Epistemology is the study of the source of knowledge. HOW do we know? If that’s what you meant I apologize, but the very notion of an epistemology that is specific to science is to already mis-define the word and topic of this thread. Epistemology is the quest to learn how we know anything at all, including, but not limited to science.
[/quote]
Nah epistemology is the study of knowledge which isn’t looking for a source in your sense. THat to me shows me your position which is not about knowledge claims or the justification of knowledge about the natural world or about human beings, but rather its about Theology. And the study of scientific knowledge, is the proper activity of epistemology. If you want to make all the claims you do then you go to Theology. [/quote]So then the nature of “knowledge” is unrelated to the basis upon which it is declared to be such? That’s what you’re saying?
Everything I, you or anybody else will or ever can do, think, say or be is theological.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Epistemology is just the study of knowledge, and what is to count as a form of knowledge.[/quote]Not quite. Epistemology is the study of the source of knowledge. HOW do we know? If that’s what you meant I apologize, but the very notion of an epistemology that is specific to science is to already mis-define the word and topic of this thread. Epistemology is the quest to learn how we know anything at all, including, but not limited to science.
[/quote]
Nah epistemology is the study of knowledge which isn’t looking for a source in your sense. THat to me shows me your position which is not about knowledge claims or the justification of knowledge about the natural world or about human beings, but rather its about Theology. And the study of scientific knowledge, is the proper activity of epistemology. If you want to make all the claims you do then you go to Theology. [/quote]So then the nature of “knowledge” is unrelated to the basis upon which it is declared to be such? That’s what you’re saying?
Everything I, you or anybody else will or ever can do, think, say or be is theological.
[/quote]
No I am saying epistemology is the subject which are the domains of knowledge, what is its justification, its method(s), its type of knowledge In short its a philosophical activity and like we said before its the study of knowledge. Its a philosophical pursuit.
Theology is a legitimate field of study, no question, but to say everything is theology, then nothing is since there is no constrast to it. So if you say " everything is Theology that isn’t an interesting claim . What is interesting is when we say specific things about a subject matter that gives it an identity. I’ll stop there since I am starting to sound like I am a know it all lol… far far from it !
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.[/quote]
I like how you said spiritual. 
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
anthropomorphic God
[/quote]
This has always bothered me. [/quote]
I’m gonna do my best and try to answer why. Because that would imply that man created God and it’s actually the other way around. Man created in God’s image. So your viewpoint is that man is a ‘theopomorphized’ creature. [/quote]
Well, more of the case that people make a sentimental God. Where we get the tyrant-gods, the hippie-gods, etc.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I know that’s your religious philosophy. That’s what I just said - only drop the sarcasm and quotations for a second. Why, in a religious discussion do you feel the need to invoke your idols of modern science against someones belief in God? [/quote]
So they that can see (hopefully) that their belief in god has no basis in reality. [/quote]
Heh, a missionary!
[/quote]
Sure. Christians have a habit of taking rights away from non-Christians sooooo there’s that.[/quote]
And you atheists, too.
[/quote]
Not in modern America/Canada.
I wasn’t even referring to centuries ago, I’m talking about now.
[/quote]
Really…do you follow current events? I know I don’t and I know this isn’t true.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I know that’s your religious philosophy. That’s what I just said - only drop the sarcasm and quotations for a second. Why, in a religious discussion do you feel the need to invoke your idols of modern science against someones belief in God? [/quote]
So they that can see (hopefully) that their belief in god has no basis in reality. [/quote]
Heh, a missionary!
[/quote]
Sure. Christians have a habit of taking rights away from non-Christians sooooo there’s that.[/quote]
And you atheists, too.
[/quote]
Not in modern America/Canada.
I wasn’t even referring to centuries ago, I’m talking about now.
[/quote]
Really…do you follow current events? I know I don’t and I know this isn’t true.[/quote]
We already had this conversation earlier in the thread.
BTW Tribulus, Toronto stopped sending it’s garbage to Michigan as of Jan 1 2011
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.[/quote]
I like how you said spiritual. ;)[/quote]Are you being serious? Never can tell with you Chris. People look differently from one another, but are spiritually the same before God. What could you find wrong with that?
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Epistemology is just the study of knowledge, and what is to count as a form of knowledge.[/quote]Not quite. Epistemology is the study of the source of knowledge. HOW do we know? If that’s what you meant I apologize, but the very notion of an epistemology that is specific to science is to already mis-define the word and topic of this thread. Epistemology is the quest to learn how we know anything at all, including, but not limited to science.
[/quote]
Nah epistemology is the study of knowledge which isn’t looking for a source in your sense. THat to me shows me your position which is not about knowledge claims or the justification of knowledge about the natural world or about human beings, but rather its about Theology. And the study of scientific knowledge, is the proper activity of epistemology. If you want to make all the claims you do then you go to Theology. [/quote]So then the nature of “knowledge” is unrelated to the basis upon which it is declared to be such? That’s what you’re saying?
Everything I, you or anybody else will or ever can do, think, say or be is theological.
[/quote]
No I am saying epistemology is the subject which are the domains of knowledge, what is its justification, its method(s), its type of knowledge In short its a philosophical activity and like we said before its the study of knowledge. Its a philosophical pursuit.
Theology is a legitimate field of study, no question, but to say everything is theology, then nothing is since there is no constrast to it. So if you say " everything is Theology that isn’t an interesting claim . What is interesting is when we say specific things about a subject matter that gives it an identity. I’ll stop there since I am starting to sound like I am a know it all lol… far far from it ![/quote]No need to stop. I love know it alls. Seriously. I respect even erroneous conviction. Uncertainty is what I cannot suffer placidly. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I didn’t say that everything IS theology. I said that everything is theologicAL. Allow me to quote again part of a definition of God I accept as exceedingly biblical. 301 redirect [quote]II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote] It is not possible for there to exist so much as one particle of reality that is unrelated to this God and therefore non theological. You may actually find interest in some of the statements of doctrine at that link.
From another thread:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< It would be even more pointless than, say, discussing theology with Tiribulus. And it says a lot. >>>[/quote]Can I ask you to please tell me EXACTLY what you mean by this. I’m not even disagreeing, but I would be interested in the absolute truth about what made you say this.
Well, you are a dogmatic and systematic mind.
Your thought is rooted on a very solid ground, and everything is consistently built upon this ground.
If you ever change your mind on theological matters (a highly improbable event), you will (have to) change ALL of it at once.
But your systematic mind love to see how other systems works. If anything, because it reinforces your own convictions and allow you to refine the “clockwork” of your own system.
So, you’re actually quite open to real discussion.
You won’t be convinced. Ever.
But you will listen. Really listen. And you will ask real (even if sometimes rhetorical) questions.
And it’s a quite rare virtue.
In a way, all our debates in these threads are pointless. Literally. But on the other hand, they are far from useless.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Where are oughts derived from?
The options I see are through deterministic factors. Also, as part of a divine spark in every person through which we know. Written in holy books.
Any other ideas?
Anyone have anything they want to add to the above or dispute it?[/quote]You’re on the right track. Thought and consciousness are two sides of the same coin. Animals also “think”, but they do not think God’s thoughts after Him, not existing in His image as does man. That “deterministic” factor is inescapable both biblically AND logically which to me are the same thing.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Well, you are a dogmatic and systematic mind.
Your thought is rooted on a very solid ground, and everything is consistently built upon this ground.
If you ever change your mind on theological matters (a highly improbable event), you will (have to) change ALL of it at once.
But your systematic mind love to see how other systems works. If anything, because it reinforces your own convictions and allow you to refine the “clockwork” of your own system.
So, you’re actually quite open to real discussion.
You won’t be convinced. Ever.
But you will listen. Really listen. And you will ask real (even if sometimes rhetorical) questions.
And it’s a quite rare virtue.
In a way, all our debates in these threads are pointless. Literally. But on the other hand, they are far from useless. [/quote]WOW Kamui. I owe you an apology for simply thinking what I was going to have to say to you in response to what I thought you were going to write. Wrong, falls embarrassingly short, but boy was I ever. Thank you sir. You credit me beyond my worth. I am humbled and gratified. Glory to Jesus. Though the particular style and expression may be my own, not one syllable you’ve read from me is mine. I stand on the shoulders of giants who went before me.
I have some comments for you as well though they’re speckled throughout our dialog already. I am out of time at work now though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:<<< Epistemology is just the study of knowledge, and what is to count as a form of knowledge.[/quote]Not quite. Epistemology is the study of the source of knowledge. HOW do we know? If that’s what you meant I apologize, but the very notion of an epistemology that is specific to science is to already mis-define the word and topic of this thread. Epistemology is the quest to learn how we know anything at all, including, but not limited to science.
[/quote]
Nah epistemology is the study of knowledge which isn’t looking for a source in your sense. THat to me shows me your position which is not about knowledge claims or the justification of knowledge about the natural world or about human beings, but rather its about Theology. And the study of scientific knowledge, is the proper activity of epistemology. If you want to make all the claims you do then you go to Theology. [/quote]So then the nature of “knowledge” is unrelated to the basis upon which it is declared to be such? That’s what you’re saying?
Everything I, you or anybody else will or ever can do, think, say or be is theological.
[/quote]
No I am saying epistemology is the subject which are the domains of knowledge, what is its justification, its method(s), its type of knowledge In short its a philosophical activity and like we said before its the study of knowledge. Its a philosophical pursuit.
No need to stop. I love know it alls. Seriously. I respect even erroneous conviction. Uncertainty is what I cannot suffer placidly. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I didn’t say that everything IS theology. I said that everything is theologicAL.
Well everything is one thing for you but not for me. And what is the difference between theology ( the study of God) and the word Theological? One is a noun the other an adjective.
That characterization of God is produced by men. I don’t accept a literal interpretation of God. All meaning is an interpretation which comes from a time and a place. So if all meaning is interpretation then that meaning is also infused with the values of those who do the interpreting. This is more so with texts . Than living persons, although even there the meaning of a living person maybe greater that what is stated at a time.
I don’t see much good coming from God talk. Like B Russell said religion has done more harm than good. If a person is a believer then go out and do good works. Respect for all people is just as important as respect for the living earth. How can one claim to love God and stand by while the the earth is being devastated with man-made Global warming. Belief in what is higher, or the supernatural has to have its connections with Truth, Justice and Beauty. People like Martin Luther King, M. Gandhi, Mother Teressa, Nelson Mandela are all good examples of people trying to make this world a better place for all…
Also i remember what Simon Weil said about loving God. she said it would be better to show your love of God where there is a doubt about God’s existence, because it would be easy to love God knowing that he exist. Takes more faith more devotion given that.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< If you ever change your mind on theological matters (a highly improbable event), you will (have to) change ALL of it at once. >>>[/quote] That is EXACTLY correct. from last summer: [quote]A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. Right now Cortes is asking me some good tough questions in the other thread that I DO have answers for, but those answers reside in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.
The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha. Divinely circular. Bitten, chewed, swallowed and digested all by faith in the utterly non contingent, all sovereign, all defining, all governing God which is itself His gift[/quote] Unbelief as an “ecosystem” cannot sustain it’s “fish”. It’s my ecosystem that keeps the unbeliever’s fish swimming. The apostle says in the 1st of Romans that they know that, and they hold that truth under in unrighteousness.
Kamui, a few pages back I said this: [quote]My friend Kamui here is a perfect example. He has REALLY thought HIMSELF through this. He has grasped the dilemma quite well. He’s even dogmatic about it’s nature. However, not having been brought from death to life in the only available remedy he has proceeded to construct FOR HIMSELF an arbitrary system of thought which TO HIM answers the dilemma while allowing him to escape responsibility to the God who alone is able to truly save him from it. He has faith, he’ll you that, in what ultimately winds up being HIMSELF. I have faith as well, in the mind of God revealed by that God himself in the Christian scriptures. Everything that He is and everything that He does explains EVERYTHING. That is, once one has had his mind regenerated by the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit. [/quote] Let me ask you why you told me that “hope is a dangerous thing”. Unless I misunderstood. You are also correct btw when you say that I REALLY listen to people. I do. They are important to me because they are my brothers in Adam. Even the ones who scream at me, ridicule me and call me names carry the image of my God. I love them. I want them to live. I can be up late tonight. I’ll be back later.
[quote]silee wrote:<<< I don’t see much good coming from God talk. >>>[/quote]Then you better stop talkin because everything you just said IS God talk. Look friend, don’t take this as ridicule. Seriously. I’m sure you’re much more educated than I am, but you are not grasping what is being discussed here. Not because you’re a bonehead, but because you had your mind made up before you popped in about what Christians were like, what epistemology could only be and quite certain that you had heard everything everybody could say to you already. Especially anachronistic idiotic young earth 6 day creationist antiques like me. [quote]silee wrote:<<< people trying to make this world a better place for all… >>>[/quote]That’s fabulous, but that has nothing to do with Christianity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.[/quote]
I like how you said spiritual. ;)[/quote]Are you being serious? Never can tell with you Chris. People look differently from one another, but are spiritually the same before God. What could you find wrong with that?
[/quote]
I’m giving you a hard time because of Calvinism’s total depravity being so close to the Manichean’s ideas about matter.
I know, it’s not possile for my own unchristian world view to be philosophically defended on a point by point basis, for the very same reasons.
Sometimes, even the simplest thing need to be explained completely, starting with axioms, terminology, etc, until we get to the systematical conclusions. And it’s very hard to do on an internet board.
And it’s even worse when you ask questions, and try to “teach” people the socratic way.
If you ever try, you end up owing dozens of very long and complex answers to dozens of people.
sound familiar ?
Personnaly, i usually do NOT try, and i therefore refrain from posting in many threads, in order to avoid the monstruous amount of work that would be required to make my perspective “audible”.
my recent posts in the SIOE thread are an exception to this rule (and probably my mistake).
I’m probably as dogmatic as you are.
but i don’t think i have faith in “what ultimately winds up being MYSELF”.
the “methodology” behind my epistemological positions explicitly “delay” the introduction of the “I” concept as long as it’s possible. In a way, my “axioms” predates “me”.
That’s how i attempt to avoid what you call “autonomy”. (And yes, i realize that autonomy has to be avoided).
And in my eyes, the fact that you found the God of Abraham (who conveniently happen to be the God of your country founding fathers) at the end of your philosophical quest for a non-contingent being sound suspiciously “autonomous”.
Well, hope feels better than despair, but both emotions are structurally identical, actually.
Hope is joy felt at the thought of an uncertain future event.
As such, it’s always linked to the (conscious or unconscious) fear of another uncertain future event.
It’s a “cloaked” kind of fear.
A tainted joy, that distract you from your actual powers and your actual weaknesses, and ultimately, from your actual responsibility.
I think we should work to change what we can change, and to fully accept what we can’t change, without ever “waiting” for the future.
And i think i would still hold this position if i believed in Providence. After all, you don’t need to hope when you “know” that future events are/will be providentially determined by God’s will. You only have to gratefully rejoice.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.[/quote]
First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly, in that I also recognize the creator God who guarantees the knowability of the world as the ultimate source of knowledge. I don’t know why some people here have such a problem with the necessity of belief as a prerequisite for knowledge. Read your Gadamer, people. Tirib’s arguing for the self-evident (though it takes awhile to get there).
I don’t think it’s on philosophical grounds that I disagree with you. My issues are exegetical. On what grounds do you justify your assumption that “the image of God” refers to “our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words, thoughts, and deeds?” Is that what Paul means by the “image of God?” Is that what the phrase meant to a first century AD Jew or an 8th century BC Israelite? Is that how they would have understood the term? The evidence from the ancient Near East actually suggests that the term related to function, i.e., humanity’s role in the cosmos, not necessarily to inherent powers of thought. Indeed, for the denizens of the ancient Near East, being made in the image of God entailed primarily the responsibility to act as God’s hands in the earth. Moreover, if you’re understanding is correct, how does that relate to children who are born with smooth brains, unable to learn or accomplish the kinds of tasks chimpanzees can do? Does their relative lack of intelligence imply that they do not bear the image of God?
Maybe I should ask first if that question even matters to you. Maybe you are the type of Calvinist for whom the Hebrew Scriptures did not originally speak to Israelites (that’s not meant as an accusation, only a possibility).
What hermeneutic do you apply to the reading of Scripture? I don’t mean to hijack the discussion here, but I feel like you already have some people recognizing the cogency of your arguments, and I don’t know how many more are open to critical thought :). Moreover, since you rightly attempt to understand the world through Scripture, your hermeneutic certainly fits under the category of an epistemological discussion.
Moreover, if you’re understanding of the nature of the divine image is correct, how does that relate to children who are born with smooth brains, unable to learn or accomplish the kinds of tasks chimpanzees can do? Does their relative lack of intelligence imply that they do not bear the image of God?