Ask me about Jeff as an auto mechanic, and my body-sense is a fell-pretty-good one. When my car breaks down, my body longs to get the car to him. I don't start to feel right until I know it's in his care. Then I relax.
Suppose Jeff began repeatedly to forget to pick up my car at the seminary, or the things I asked him to fix didn't get fixed. The faulty symptoms change noticeably when he was supposed to have fixed something. Suppose I heard of his being mixed up in some shady dealings. Suppose his gas station started to look slovenly. I would be relying on my senses for all these experiences. I would also be growing an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach. If you asked me about Jeff as an auto mechanic, I would get this feeling.
Is it too much of a stretch to say that we rely on bodily clues when we know God? I think not. Some people have thought religious experience was only mystical or irrational. I think bodily clues are included in our experience of God, and I don't think of it as a mystical experience. For example, all of us have known moments of glory, brushes with transcendence, whether in sports or in music, mountains or sunsets, creative acts, childbirths, or acts of heroism. Those experiences have a bodily dimension to them. We are caught up, transported. Something in us cries out for transcendence, as our fingers might itch to touch velvet, or our feet to dance to Scott Joplin. To what do these body longings point?
Meeks, pg. 93
And later, pg. 106
I hope you see that I mean to challenge this time-honored but false and unfortunate dichotomy. We trust our parents, we trust the nurse, we trust the Magic Eye directions, we trust the auto mechanic, we trust the piano teacher, we trust Scripture. If you like, you may call it faith. but you must call it faith when the topic is breast-feeding or golf or auto mechanics just as it is faith when the topic is God. We must also see that this is the stuff of reason. What is part and parcel of any human act of knowing we would do well to call rational, and just plain common sense. It's reasonable for me to trust Jeff. It is in the same way reasonable for me to trust Scripture.
6 comments:
Hi Matt,
I will read the book when I finish my test (like I said on Facebook) but I'm getting bored of studying for the evening and as a non-physics intellectual diversion I'll make an effort to make preliminary comments on the passages posted on your blog.
I'm a little confused about the first paragraph here. I don't think a decision such as this would be made because of a feeling in the stomach; rather, there is a rational argument for why to not trust this mechanic.
Further, the difference between the "experience of God" and all of the other things listed here - "music, sunsets, childbirths... etc" is that all these other items interact with us through materialistic means. We see the sunset, we hear the music... we interact with them through our senses. "Bodily longings" aren't typically considered to have much epistemological virtue so far as I can tell, nor should they. Seeing the sunset and enjoying it tells us nothing about the sun. We can learn about the sun, but it's not done though our feelings. Further, having feelings about something not only doesn't tell anything about that thing, it doesn't even fix its existence. I can image a sunset right now and have feelings about it.
There are a couple of reasons we could trust a source of information. One is that there is a reason by which this source has expertise or credibility: our parents are older than us and have lived more life; our mechanic went to technical college to learn about cars. We might trust a book written by an expert, if we know who that expert is and whence came their expertise. Scripture, however, is sourceless in the traditional sense. The other reason we might trust something is because it has proven to be right repeatedly; the mechanic always fixes the car, so he will this time, too. Scripture could be trustworthy by this measure. But, if you divide claims made by the scripture into, say, advice on how to run your life in the material world and claims about the nature of God, you will find the former have been significantly upgraded with each passing generation of humans and the later unverifiable.
Imagine you have a Muslim friend and you both have broken cars. You agree to do the same thing: you both take your cars to the mechanic, because you both have found that mechanics fix cars. "Mechanics fix cars" is a verifiable claim. On the other hand, you do not agree about Scripture, because the claims made therein cannot be evaluated by either of you - at least not until you die, at which point your capacity to evaluate them may or may not be very limited.
First to be fair when she talks in terms of "feeling of the stomach" she is talking about a complicated skill which could be developed better in some and worse in others which incorporates both rational argument and things hard-to-express-in-words like: does he shift his weight, does he look me in the eye. People couldn't express why they might be uneasy about this particular mechanic, but perhaps there are good reasons which are more a skill than a rational argument.
Also, FYI she says she's intentionally trying to be very readable since it is "for ordinary people". So her language is looser than it could/should be for serious debate.
I do get your point about "religious experience." Not only do I follow it, but I feel it from time to time. Meek does address this to a point. She addresses this in two places.
"What makes the question "Can we know God?" so provocative? To begin with, there's hardly a consensus on the answer, either for the affirmative or for the negative. And within the camp of those who say yes, no clear consensus can be found concerning the nature of the God we claim to know.
So much seems to challenge an affirmative answer. We're talking, after all, about knowing a being who isn't seen, touched, or heard. If someone reports in our hearing that he or she did see, touch, or hear God, we're likely to wonder about the legitimacy of their experience. The philosophical legacy of our times disposes people generally to discredit religious experience in contrast to sense experience, science, and ordinary rationality. In fact, it is quite common these days to discredit all claims to confident knowledge of any sort.
Saying no to the question, by the way, requires as much work to be shown as yes. A general disposition to discredit religious experience rests on just as many answers to other questions."
Then later,
"You may be protesting: 'But you can't touch God! You can touch your auto mechanic! The analogy doesn't hold water! I can know an auto mechanic. I have no clue who God is.' You're right: I could drive down to Jeff's garage and touch him. I can't do that with God. I think this will be helped if we talk about what goes on in the ordinary act of knowing, and what doesn't. Is touching, for example, necessary to knowing?
Let's also clarify what can be known of God if you do know him. If what the Bible says about God is true, knowing God involves, in part, knowing someone who has been here tangibly in the past, has told us about himself, who has gone away and promised to return. We are very much in an in-between time. The Bible speaks of our loving him whom we have not seen. It talks about our knowing now 'in part,' seeing 'but a poor reflection as in a mirror,' but then knowing 'face to face' 'fully, even as we are fully known.' Comparing apples and apples, this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, Jeff's mom telling me that he has gone to Europe for a visit, but that he promised to fix my car when he gets back."
Granted, I don't think Meek is exactly comparing "apples and apples" in this last illustration. There are striking differences. But I think it is important to note that Christian knowing is very much based on past "revelation" especially Jesus and the Bible. This is why we learn Greek and about textual criticism, we want to be sure we have a trustworthy "letter." And the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the most crucial aspect of the entire Christian faith. The Christian faith could have been based on a "spiritual resurrection", but the Bible claims it to have been a bodily one. All that the Palestinian Jews would have had to have done to destroy Christianity would be to produce the body of the so-called Christ.
But leaving that aside for a second. I think Meek's point is that most knowledge for "ordinary" people is not arrived at by well developed "rational argument". In fact, she says that to create a "rational argument" one already has to have reached a conclusion. We see a pattern then we describe it. She says, "to focus on a coherent pattern, one has to submit to its reality." I think this point is a good one. Everyone has epistemic questions which cannot be answered by "materialistic means." For instance, you are studying (from my recollection) the first epoch of the big bang. I would argue the question of origin is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. That isn't to say science has no bearing on the question. Science collects the facts, but it's interpretation of them is not repeatable, thus not verifiable, strictly speaking. Yet, one can buy into it with reasonable certainty because not only are there facts which seem to support it, but also because it fits into one's larger grid of reality (like if one agrees with Freud or Nietzsche). This point, it seems to me, is where the strength and weakness of Christianity lies. I would say the weakness is that Christianity is perhaps the most perverted worldview in the history of the world. It's own texts explain the cause for this; one of it's fundamental traits is the depravity of man (that man is basically bad, tending toward perversion and self-worship). The perversion of Christianity is seen very clearly in its self-righteous "professed" adherents. The whole point of Christianity is that favor with God cannot be earned. Yet, people continue to persist in drumming up long lists of how they can "please" (appease?) God and project these understandings on others (the whole problem with perverted Christianity in a democratic society). Yet, the cross says that God stepped into our world in real human form to free us from our self-worship and meaningless to change us back into what we were made to be, worshipers of God (the same reason we feel most exhilarated when we feel smallest, like standing on the top of a mountain, or gazing at the stars). At any rate, I think the power of the message of real Christianity fits with the grid of how I understand reality, and I don't see it as fundamentally irrational especially because of God's hand reaching into our world both with Christ, his word, and personal experience.
In summary when you say, "On the other hand, you do not agree about Scripture, because the claims made therein cannot be evaluated by either of you." I think Meek's whole point is that knowledge exists on an ordinary level that doesn't have to pass such rigorous standards of evaluation, but which we generally observe to be true. And my point is that I think she's right in this, and it's evidenced in part by why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Sorry this is long and probably difficult to follow. It has been difficult in this busy day to get my thoughts together and have time to type them.
Enjoy the discourse, hope all is well,
Matt
Hi,
some thoughts. Thanks to the lovely nature of online discussions, I think it's to the point where I have to blockquote!
she is talking about a complicated skill ... which incorporates ... things hard-to-express-in-words like: does he shift his weight, does he look me in the eye.
I think you just expressed those in words. I think that these sorts of instincts are really just rational faculties so ingrained that we don't think about them on a higher level. It doesn't make them magical in any way; rather, this "gut" distrust of the shady mechanic is perhaps more like appetite - we don't think, "gee, I haven't eaten in x hours so I should eat", we just feel hungry.
Saying no to the question, by the way, requires as much work to be shown as yes.
This is a common sentiment among theologians and believers in general, and I think that it's a very striking logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person who introduces the idea; it doesn't get to be true by default.
Imagine I tell you there's a magical blue teapot orbiting Jupiter, and if you pray to it, it will listen and help you out. I would hope that you would not say, "well, I can't prove him wrong, so I guess it is likely to be true." I would hope you would say, "there is no evidence to back that claim, so I find it very unlikely."
this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, Jeff's mom telling me that he has gone to Europe for a visit, but that he promised to fix my car when he gets back."
I think this is clever rhetorically but she still doesn't bridge the gap here between material and immaterial. She's dealing with real people. If Jeff's mom instead told her about my teapot, I would hope her reaction would not be, "well, I guess I can't touch the teapot myself, but Jeff (as in me) says he went out there on a spaceship and touched it, that's good enough for me!"
I think Meek's point is that most knowledge for "ordinary" people is not arrived at by well developed "rational argument".
I read this as her saying that most decisions are not arrived by rational argument, which may very well be true. But I don't think this is a free "out" from the rigors of academic thinking.
Everyone has epistemic questions which cannot be answered by "materialistic means."
I'm ok with this - this is philosophy. But if you claim to have an answer to a question that can't be answered by empirical evidence or logical thinking, then you're selling snake-oil. "Faith" is a cop-out, to me.
For instance, you are studying (from my recollection) the first epoch of the big bang. I would argue the question of origin is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.
Well, saying "what happened before the big bang" is a non-nonsensical question, scientifically speaking - so I agree that THAT question is not of scientific origin; we're studying the early history of the universe, which is observable.
it's interpretation of them is not repeatable, thus not verifiable, strictly speaking.
There are good and bad interpretations of facts. We operate on this every day; it's why when we arrive home and our window is broken we call the cops - because a rational interpretation of this fact is that someone broke in and might be waiting in there for us with a baseball bat. Not all interpretations of the facts are created equally; logical positivism is valid because it is functional, it has succeeded in teaching us about the universe and eventually closes in on the right answers. If people had terrible interpretations of the facts (eg, Newton's apple tells him that invisible monkeys make things fall by throwing them at the ground, rather than that massive bodies attract each other with a force that's proportional to the inverse of their distance squared), science would be divergent and incoherent - the fact that it begins to form a structure tells us our interpretations aren't always correct at first, but begin to be correct as we learn more.
I think towards the end of that paragraph, you begin to enter territory where my knowledge of theology puts me out of the picture ;)
why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Ah, well, by virtue of using a computer, you also believe in - or I would say accept - naturalism!
Respectfully,
Jeff
Jeff,
Sorry this has taken so long. A note first: to be clear I had originally asked for your critique of the sections of the book. I am beginning to see that this will be difficult without getting a more complete picture of what Meek is saying. I think we’ll perhaps be rabbit trailing off into deeper discussions which are fine with me, but perhaps we can do that over coffee the next time I’m in the cities.
I do think part of my original question is how you interact with postmodernism in general. And maybe that will be a conversation over coffee. But I have appreciated you answers.
Now to your responses.
I think you just expressed those in words. I think that these sorts of instincts are really just rational faculties so ingrained that we don't think about them on a higher level. It doesn't make them magical in any way; rather, this "gut" distrust of the shady mechanic is perhaps more like appetite - we don't think, "gee, I haven't eaten in x hours so I should eat", we just feel hungry.
Yes I agree. But I think you would also have to agree that this process isn’t always very well reasoned out. In other words, so people are just bad at “knowing” and others are better at it. The overall point is to take knowing from a vacuum and put it back where it always is, the knower. Furthermore, perhaps I can explain why I think someone makes a particular decision or knows something but they may not always be able to explain it and I may be wrong. I think she’s just trying to be realistic about the complexity of knowing – and I think postmoderns would agree. And finally, when you stop to think about it, there are countless numbers of questions which you claim to have answers to which are a direct inference from a non-verifiable belief, that’s just life.
This is a common sentiment among theologians and believers in general, and I think that it's a very striking logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person who introduces the idea; it doesn't get to be true by default.
Historically speaking is the idea of atheism earlier than theism? Where did this idea of theism come from? I’m not going to allow atheism to be our scientific presupposition, if theism can’t be. People have always been asking where did we come from and only more recently did naturalism have a halfway rational answer to this. But her point is that if one HAS to show ALL of his/her work then both atheist/theist should have to show it. But at any rate there are deeper issues there and I understand your critique.
this epistemic act of knowing God now compares more to, say, Jeff's mom telling me that he has gone to Europe for a visit, but that he promised to fix my car when he gets back."
I think this is clever rhetorically but she still doesn't bridge the gap here between material and immaterial.
I already mentioned there were flaws with her analogy, but I do think you have to deal with the Christ and his claims.
I read this as her saying that most decisions are not arrived by rational argument, which may very well be true. But I don't think this is a free "out" from the rigors of academic thinking.
Yes, but the even the rigors of academic thinking have to begin by supposing there is or there isn’t a God. I’m all for people having a reason for what they believe, and I’m probably more uncomfortable with religious experience than some. But academic thinking cannot prove certain epistemic questions.
I'm ok with this - this is philosophy. But if you claim to have an answer to a question that can't be answered by empirical evidence or logical thinking, then you're selling snake-oil. "Faith" is a cop-out, to me.
This hits at the very crux of what Meek is saying and I’m glad you said it this way. When you say “answer” you mean verifiably certain scientific fact, no? The point of what Meek is saying (and also what postmodern deconstructionists) is that knowledge doesn’t work this way. For one thing, almost no one can verify what they know. We’re all taking someone’s word for it. Second, even if we think we “know” something we have the trouble of expressing it in words. Not only are there limitations to what we can express but what do words mean, except that which has been agreed upon by a certain cultural grouping. Under close certainty, with no universals, truth loses. Now, in the scientific world postmodernists don’t make any sense because we know that water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The line between truth and fiction is a very defined one. Yet, why hasn’t this translated over to epistemic questions? Atheistic philosophers have produced some of the bleakest, most self-absorbed philosophy out there. Simply saying “there is no God” has done nothing for their ability to answer their own epistemic questions. What atheistic philosopher hasn’t committed suicide? I’m reading Naseau by Sarte right now. If you’re looking for a great light hearted read… At any rate, the point is Christians claim they have the answer. But they can’t prove it in the sense you require. But don’t accuse all Christians of selling snake oil.
I’ll be honest with you, part of the reason I am a Christian is because I see the simplicity and beauty in the Christian message, there’s wisdom in it. Einstein said something similar to this about looking for and expecting to find beauty and simplicity in natural law. Additionally, I have about the best marriage I could ever imagine. It answers my epistemic questions. Furthermore, I would argue it doesn’t contradict science. For more on this see Alvin Plantiga (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Alvin+Plantinga+Norton&btnG=Google+Search, professor at Notre Dame).
Not all interpretations of the facts are created equally; logical positivism is valid because it is functional, it has succeeded in teaching us about the universe and eventually closes in on the right answers. If people had terrible interpretations of the facts (eg, Newton's apple tells him that invisible monkeys make things fall by throwing them at the ground, rather than that massive bodies attract each other with a force that's proportional to the inverse of their distance squared), science would be divergent and incoherent - the fact that it begins to form a structure tells us our interpretations aren't always correct at first, but begin to be correct as we learn more.
This is interesting. I wonder though have we closed in on the right answers in some areas while further distancing ourselves from them in others? Consider crime rates, rising or falling? If I had time, I’d like to hear more on this from you. I’d like to hear how your philosophy works out. Perhaps coffee again…
why I believe Christianity and why you believe in naturalism.
Ah, well, by virtue of using a computer, you also believe in - or I would say accept - naturalism!
This is where you are wrong. I have a Mac. God runs my computer. :) jk
But in all seriousness, I’ve never met a Christian who denies the validity science. Only those who are accused of it (or have uneducated opinions). The difference lies in the presuppositions address in plantinga’s lectures at the link I gave you.
It’s been fun. Thanks again. Good luck with the studies.
Matt
Here's the right link to that lecture.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/Audio_Resources/Norton_Lectures.aspx
Post a Comment