Links to an excellent article exploring ways in which the notion of the fall of humanity can be understood.
This is a link to a very thoughtful article written by Doug Chaplin on his blog that deals with the concept of the fall of humanity in the Bible. It is full of interesting ideas and helpful points to keep in mind when attempting to understand the roles of fall and redemption found throughout the Bible.
Posts
A Little Housekeeping
-
Its been a long time since I've posted anything here, and I regret the
lengthy delay. Life has been pretty crazy as of late, so I may not be able
to post a...
14 years ago
24 comments:
What good is generating interpretations when you can never tell who's right?
It doesn't pass the "look" test. You can't ever generate a hypothesis (an interpretation) and check to see if its right.
You just have to pick the one that "feels right".
That's a terrible method for decision making.
Obviously, interpretation is not the same as comparing empirical observations (but even that is not value neutral), but that does not make it worthless.
It is a tremendous oversimplification to say it is just picking one that "feels right"- Chaplin looks at Scripture, tradition, and science among other things. I don't think Chaplin is advocating simply going with whatever "feels right," and I'm certainly not.
Your "look" test is all good and well for things that are readily observable, but that certainly does not describe all things and the sort of things that are not described are by no means unimportant. You may want to argue that we shouldn't be speculating about matters beyond what we can directly access and observe, but that leaves off a tremendous swath of human experience or treats it in a very much impoverished way.
I readily admit that faith, literature, art, etc. don't generate the same kind of results and agreement that analysis the physical world seems to yield (although I don't think I have as strong of faith is those results as you do), but I don't think that necessitates putting an end to thinking deeply about these matters.
[part 1] Hi Mattk,
Now we are in the domain of epistemology. One of my favorite topics because I apply it everyday, and I am in the unique position of testing the various Epistemological hypotheses in a practical way every day. I've discovered that whether or not there are "brains in a vat" is irrelevant.
We start with the question "How do you know?"
and we get the response
"Well, there's this and this and this."
but now we need to "look" at "this and this and this and this". We need to break it down into its smallest components so we avoid conflation and look at each "this" independently and see how it "connects" to the next "this". This is how we stop our slippery slide into irrelevance.
Obviously, interpretation is not the same as comparing empirical observations (but even that is not value neutral), but that does not make it worthless.
EVERY DECISION IS DERIVED FROM THE VALUES OF THE THINKER. But the question becomes, are the values sufficient to derive the answer. Are the values appropriate? In Iceland (elves) and in India (Lord Rama and his army of monkeys), values for traditional beliefs have caused the local governments to make decisions that were not in the best interest of the larger community. Values cause bias. The scientific method is designed to overcome bias.
Interpretation is essential not worthless. "Worthless" is your word not mine.
In my line of work "interpretation" is called generating a hypothesis.
Our subscribers depend on it.
In my line of work, if a circuit has no connectivity we look at all the data, make diagrams, and come up with a hypothesis for where to start looking for the problem.
At that point, we've picked the spot in our diagram to start looking and we call the people responsible for that portion of the circuit.
They invariable deny its the case.
We tell them our indications, we argue a little bit, then we say (effectively) If I'm right we can expect this, and this and this, If you're right we can expect that and that and that, so now lets look.
We test our interpretation of the data, or HYPOTHESIS BASED ON AN *INTERPRETATION* OF THE DATA. We mentally check off the number times each one of us is right. Its all very Bayesian.
Either one of us is right, or we find a new place to look based on NEW INFORMATION that we discovered in the LOOKING.
But in all cases, it is resolved by the looking.
In some cases we have no indications on our monitoring equipment, but we have a subscriber complaining about service. When that is the case, most of the time it is the subscriber that has unrealistic expectations, is not using the equipment properly, or has misinterpreted something.
At that point we have to just say to the subscriber "you may be right, but at this time, we don't have any indication anything is wrong except what you are telling us" which is not enough information to dedicate resources to it. It may be a problem, we'll just have to "wait and see", (monitor it).
In other words, it doesn't pass the "relevance" test.
Over a few days, and after a follow-up, if nothing has changed we'll send someone "TO LOOK AT IT" and go from there, but usually the trouble, as we say, FIXES ITSELF (by magic of course) and we close the work request.
[part 2]
It is a tremendous oversimplification to say it is just picking one that "feels right"- Chaplin looks at Scripture, tradition, and science among other things. I don't think Chaplin is advocating simply going with whatever "feels right," and I'm certainly not.
But it doesn't pass the relevance test. At this point you all are just "monitoring" it, looking for NEW INFORMATION that never comes because all you have are INTERPRETATIONS (hypotheses). It remains UNRESOLVED and is apparently UNRESOLVABLE because it appears to be a problem in perception. Like a brain in a vat.
You just pick the explanation you like best and go with it whether its relevant or not. How "tightly coupled" is your evidence to the "real world". Is it direct evidence? Is it indirect evidence? Is it circumstantial? It matters as to how strong the case is. How strong the argument is. How trustworthy the information is to make decisions with.
Your "look" test is all good and well for things that are readily observable, but that certainly does not describe all things and the sort of things that are not described are by no means unimportant.
"Unimportant" is your word. They are important, but usually only to the person that perceives them. The disgruntled user that insists there is an imperceptible problem. Or like the person suffering from a panic attack.
You may want to argue that we shouldn't be speculating about matters beyond what we can directly access and observe, but that leaves off a tremendous swath of human experience or treats it in a very much impoverished way.
Impoverished? "impoverished" is your word. Heck no,
for the record, INTERPRETATIONS are ESSENTIAL as THE STARTING POINT for resolving a question.
The "how do you know?" question.
But you can't stop there, and after you've looked for thousands of years and found no new information, its time to "close the work request".
Dostoevsky novels have aspects that we can "look" at and see examples of in the real word. His novels are relevant to those that perceive them, but as far as using them to make decisions with, they are not relevant except as entertainment.
In fact I would go so far as to say that, since I have two suicides in my family and married into a family of bipolars and panic disorders, that psychology ranks right down there with literature as a decision making tool. The psychiatrist should be the standard for mental health treatment because during talk therapy, psychiatrists would have a greater depth of knowledge to draw from and expedite the treatment if anti-depressants are in order.
But then there's the incompetent oncologist that missed the colon cancer over five years, resulting in the unnecessary death of one of my family members.
Science wasn't the problem, he wasn't using science. He never got off the starting point. He never thought to himself seriously, "I might be wrong" lets do some more tests. "LETS LOOK A LITTLE HARDER".
[part 3]
I readily admit that faith, literature, art, etc. don't generate the same kind of results and agreement that analysis the physical world seems to yield (although I don't think I have as strong of faith is those results as you do), but I don't think that necessitates putting an end to thinking deeply about these matters.
Me neither!
And my Hypotheis is that you don't have enough *"invested"* in getting off the interpretation starting point as I do. (more of that "impoverished" world view that you pointed out in another comment.)
Getting over suicides, unnecessary death and trying to talk people down from a panic attack coupled with solving subscriber problems have shown me how insufficient it is to ONLY THINK DEEPLY about these things. Think deeply till you're blue, but you're not going to talk someone out of suicide, a panic attack, find the cancer or restore connectivity by thinking deeply about these things, and this is a "portable principle" it works across domains or "magisteria" (if you will) including religion.
I agree that "brains in a vat" are irrelevant when we are looking at things pragmatically, which seems to be the route you prefer to go. I agree that a pragmatic approach is often the wisest avenue, but I am talking about metaphysical claims here, which seem to go beyond the scope of more pragmatic approaches.
Looking and rechecking won't settle anything if our ability to look and recheck is precisely what is being called into question. The "how do you know" question is obviously THE question of epistemology and finding new information relevant to a question does nothing to contribute to what if anything can be said about our means of knowing. The justification criterion in epistemology is obviously the biggest sticking point, and the best any of us can do is give an interpretation of why we think a certain criteria should be applied. Need I be 90% confident? How about 95%? Must my reasoning necessarily include certain factors, or exclude others? You can give an answer, but there is no way to prove that it is the "right" answer. The best you or I can do is specify a desired goal, explain what we think the desired outcome should be, and propose the best means for achieving it. The problems is that you and I and many others have different goals in mind, different ideas of what the desired outcome of these goals are, and different views of the best means of achieving them.
I say we can't close the work order because the questions are too important even if no one has produced the winning trump to which all must bow. These are questions of value, purpose, and meaning, which don't yield to the kind of analysis you are proposing. You are obviously entitled to deciding to close the work order for not making enough progress in your view, but in my view these questions matter a great deal and I want to continue to probe them, even if I never arrive at "the answer" this side of the resurrection (allow me my figure of speech on this one:-P)
Your experience seems to be that people making decisions out of a faith context make harmful choices both for themselves and others. The problem (for our discussion at least) is that this is not my experience. I've grown up in a family with a long history of faith and seen it play a role in decisions my whole life and in my own life and it has been a source of blessing, direction, and strength. Obviously this is not the case for everyone and people have done terrible things in the name of faith, but my experience as part of a tradition of faith has shown me the tremendous good it can also do.
In my experience, faith has never been about shutting off your rational capacities or using it as an excuse to neglect personal responsibilities, it has been instead about working and thinking as hard as you can while being willing to attempt things that may seem to be beyond reach, trusting in God. I know that's not what it means for everyone, and I've heard plenty of stories from other Christians about people doing things like not saving for retirement because they think Jesus is coming back in ten years, etc. But since that's not the kind of faith I was shaped in or have ever practiced, its very difficult for me to see faith playing some form of role in a decision making process in as negative a light as you do. If my experience was vastly different, then I may very well think more closely along your lines.
You might want to say that overall it is clearly more harmful than beneficial or that decisions that have worked out well for me and others are due to things like working hard and carefully considering options and that we are unnecessarily crediting faith (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, just trying to show that I'm thinking about the other side of the things I'm saying), but I don’t see it that way and to try to embrace such a view would cause me to reject too much of what I have experienced.
Lets define some terms here.
I know what the dictionary says about "metaphysical" but what do YOU mean about "metaphysical claims"?
I'd also like to add that its pleasure to finally find a place to discuss these things with someone like you. Richd was my favorite commenter over at DC because he is like you, intelligent, calm, cool and a little playful. That's why I asked him to join. Now I have two!
You guys should be the standard in Christian blog discussions!
Hi Logan,
When I am speaking of "metaphysical claims" I am talking about the nature of being and reality: is there a reality external to our senses, is it accessible to our reason, is God a part of it or not, etc. Stuff like being, time, substance, etc. Sorry about not being more clear with my terms. As anyone who has ever walked to into a bookstore and looked at the section labeled "metaphysics" only to find books on spirit power in the pyramids can tell you, the term has taken on a broad host of meanings:-)
I'm glad you find Rich and I such engaging discussion partners. I heartily echo your thoughts. It has been an absolute pleasure to dialog here and enjoy stimulating and thoughtful discussion. I always take away something new to think about:-D Thanks again for inviting me to participate here!
I'll echo the thanks for inviting and also glad to have Matt join in on the well thought out discussion that we tend to have, including the little bit of fun thrown in. What I always hated about places like DC is people come in insulting the author and you lose sight of the discussion and it made it hard to reighn back in the emotions and get back to calm.
This is always a hard topic for me for a couple of reasons. To show that Adam never existed would be a shot to religion, I don't think that has been done. It can be shown to our best knowledge of how we observe the world to work that it is unlikely that two people began the human race. Since our knowledge is limited I'll accept that for what it is, unlikely to our best understanding. On the other side we have a limited amount of information about creation so we really can't say much more than God did it. It's a tough corner to be in for the reality of Adam and Eve. This was an intersting read.
To believe that Adam and Eve are real people, as I do, adn then try to sort out what both religion and science tells us is a pretty monumental task. This is a topic that I hope to understand better one day but I don't rest my belief and faith in the atonement of Christ on wether we understand the beginnings of life on our little blue dot or not, from either side. So it's not that I don't like getting into discussions about Adam and find time to look at information science gives us continually, I subscribe to a couple of magazines, It is that I readily admit that I son't have a good grasp of creation and Adam, but then that's what study is for. :)
Hi Mattk,
I challenge your whole premise about the "metaphysical".
I agree that "brains in a vat" are irrelevant when we are looking at things pragmatically, which seems to be the route you prefer to go. I agree that a pragmatic approach is often the wisest avenue, but I am talking about metaphysical claims here, which seem to go beyond the scope of more pragmatic approaches.
Rephrasing your comment above,
"I agree that a pragmatic approach is often the wisest avenue, but I am talking about [the nature of being and reality] claims here, which seem to go beyond the scope of more pragmatic approaches. "
What makes the nature of being and reality SEEM to go beyond the scope of more pragmatic approaches?
You agree the pragmatic approach is often the wisest avenue, but how often? Most of the time? Half the time? How often in your daily life do you abandon the pragmatic approach to do things? I'll bet, almost never. I'll bet the pragmatic approach dominates your life in terms of how you interact with the world. The way you perceive the world works good enough, and probably hardly ever is not sufficient.
You are rephrasing the brain in a vat problem. When you question your ability to justify what you think you know because you are not sure you have perceived it correctly, its the brain in the vat problem. Even if you can't perceive the world the way a bee does, it really doesn't make a difference does it? I say there is no reason to think there is any "metaphysical" because if a thing can't be perceived even with tools, then it only exists as an idea. Its just an entertaining idea. As humans go about life, perceiving problems that need solutions, they look harder, they use inference to look for logical relationships, to make predictions about the physical world and come up with new methods and ways of perceiving, measuring and modeling the world so it can be worked with using tools. Tools ranging from higgs-boson detectors to pencil and paper.
These alleged gods are all in hiding. They only communicate ambiguously. Its not clear to anyone except apriori that any particular god exists or not, and in the case of those of us that go looking using the methods that work for everything else, we fail miserably.
Why should methods we use for everything else not work with a god?
I can communicate with you unambiguously and you don't seem to think I'm presumptuous for expecting that from you, why do some Christians call people like me arrogant when we apply that to a god? Its just common sense that if you want to get your message across, you do it clearly and unambiguously, especially in the case of "safety issues", such as in the cases of losing your life or your afterlife.
in the interest of clarity, I'll restate the point of my comment above,
What makes the nature of being and reality SEEM to go beyond the scope of more pragmatic approaches?
Richd,
what reason do you have to believe that adam and ever really existed other than genesis?
What reasons are there to believe that genesis is wrong?
How much of genesis is wrong?
MattK and I seem to think quite a bit.
in the case that we say that God gave one man and one woman in a population the "properties of adam and eve", thats not what genesis says is it?
So what reason to believe an event like that really happened is there?
Its pure speculation rooted in the prior belief that genesis is true to some degree, but to what degree and how much?
there's no way to tell. Therefore, we cannot know, that means we are agnostic about whether genesis has any truth to it or not.
Faith is no way make to good decisions.
Mattk,
I've grown up in a family with a long history of faith and seen it play a role in decisions my whole life and in my own life and it has been a source of blessing, direction, and strength.
How much faith?
Was there any evidence, anything you could point your finger at, put your finger on, and relevant data that supplemented your faith?
You gambled. You took the best information you had, and you made a time-dependent decision on incomplete information and hoped for the best.
Nothing metaphysical about that.
We all do it all the time, its just that when it gets dressed up in god-talk, it seems to be something else.
Hey, Logan,
what reason do you have to believe that adam and ever really existed other than genesis?
This, that, and yes they are books that are not confirmed by the world as true, but there is more than just genesis.
What reasons are there to believe that genesis is wrong?
How much of genesis is wrong?
Wrong how? That it doesn't match our scientific knowledge? It doesn't give us an accurate account of the beginning of the earth? Or not accurate in informing us that God created the earth and life on it, man fell and began our journey of faith and free agency in choosing to follow or not the commandments God would give us? Doesn't it all depend on the "scope" of the scriptures for determining their truth and accuracy?
Oh yeah,
Faith is no way make to good decisions.
Really? I have no problem making good decisions every day with faith. Ialso make decisions that aren't faith based everyday. faith doesn't troubleshoot the machines I work on each day. But faith is a major part of everyday for me and I have been just fine making good decisions.
Logan,
what makes nature and reality seem to go beyond the scope of pragmatic methods is that pragmatic methods are unable to evaluate metaphysical questions because they in fact represent metaphysical assumptions.
Your various decision making schema make no sense unless one already believes that sense information is a reliable guide, that certain decision making processes work the best, etc. Again, this is pragmatic, but it doesn't allow us to make a metaphysical leap. Science operates on the metaphysical assumption that since its results are reproducible, observable, etc., etc., that they tell us something about the way the world really is, but this is only an assumption. It could just be that science is good at producing useful results for humans that have no bearing on the nature of reality.
In the same way that some believe that religion is "false" in the sense that they believe that there is no God, supernatural, spiritual dimensions etc., but believe that religion developed because it was a useful evolutionary adaptation, the same can be argued about science or any other method that it may be useful but "false." (This view is usually called "instrumentalism" in the philosophy of science). This is what I mean when I say that pragmatic methods don't weigh in on metaphysical questions. Answering these questions requires going beyond the evidence to foundational assumptions, but it is impossible to escape from metaphysical assumptions.
I use pragmatic approaches when I want pragmatic results: it doesn't matter if the sandwich I want to eat is anything like I perceive to be apart from my senses as long as it satisfies my hunger. However, not everything I do is for pragmatic ends, including wondering about ultimate reality and questions of goodness and truth.
You said: "You gambled. You took the best information you had, and you made a time-dependent decision on incomplete information and hoped for the best."
Absolutely, and part of that information was a belief in the goodness and faithfulness of God. Whether God exists or not, I think it is uncontroversial that God can and does play a legitimate role in decisions that people make. Could it be that I just get lucky? It's obviously possible, I'm just bringing this up to say why I don't have the same view of faith based reasoning that you do.
I agree with Rich that faith does not preclude good decision making. It isn't an either/or proposition: either all logical analysis or all faith. Both play a part, differing in degree from situation to situation. I think trying to quantify "how much is faith" (or "how much of Genesis is wrong") is asking the wrong question since it will inevitably lead to a line-drawing fallacy.
Well Richd,
why SHOULD you choose the genesis account of creation over the Vedic account?
Hi Mattk,
sorry guys i'll have to piecemeal my responses as i get a moment.
Your various decision making schema make no sense unless one already believes that sense information is a reliable guide, that certain decision making processes work the best, etc.
Its not a belief that depends on faith, it depends on a accumulation of data during events or projects resulting in successful outcomes.
That is not faith. Committing to an idea on little evidence is faith. Committing to an idea because all the data converges on a point is not faith.
This is demonstrable.
It can be measured and quantified. Probabilities for success can be predicted reliably.
Goal and data driven outcomes far and away beat faith based outcomes, that's why running your project on faith is frowned upon.
Hi MattK, and richd too, this has to do with faith based belief, decision making.
In the same way that some believe that religion is "false" in the sense that they believe that there is no God, supernatural, spiritual dimensions etc., but believe that religion developed because it was a useful evolutionary adaptation, the same can be argued about science or any other method that it may be useful but "false." (This view is usually called "instrumentalism" in the philosophy of science). This is what I mean when I say that pragmatic methods don't weigh in on metaphysical questions. Answering these questions requires going beyond the evidence to foundational assumptions, but it is impossible to escape from metaphysical assumptions.
Foundational assumptions? Because they can't be proven to be true are untrustworthy?
Probability is the very guide of life.
You can never know anything with any certainty, even this sentence (word game I know). But it is probabilistically good enough to work with.
If you didn't use probabilistically sound judgement, you'd be immobilized. Literally. How are you going to brush your teeth except that to believe that your perception of your tooth brush is good enough to work with, and all the rest of it that follows.
Why shouldn't we give methods that produce more successful results a higher value in our decision making?
Because they might not represent the real state of the world? Because they can't be PROVEN to be correct?
Just when you think you've proven something, someone is not going to believe it. Thats politics.
You and Rich are convinced of the resurrection and I'm sure your evidence is good enough for you but not to a muslim.
You and rich are convinced of the existence of Japan and fire, and so are muslims. It has to do with the quality of evidence and how much. Its all very bayesian (I love that ;-))
There has to be a reason to give faith based decision making schemes equal value to the more successful data driven methods. So what is it?
Clinical trials are obligatory and are designed to be completely based on statistical data, not faith.
Would you take a prescription DRUG that hasn't gone through clinical trials?
I am familiar with the philosophy of science, and from what I remember of it, I thought to myself, this is where philosophy doesn't pass the look test. Some philosophy loses relevance because they don't bother checking the data related to their conclusion. They are like a bird that never lands on the ground. Sooner or later they have to eat, or they die. Just like a speculative claim, or a hypothesis. To say alive it has to be nourished by the data.
Saying something is relevant because it can't be falsified is a non-sequitur. Its an argument from ignorance, and it is the only way to keep the brain-in-a-vat scenario relevant.
guys, what is the difference between faith based decision making and
time-dependent decision making on little information?
They look exactly the same to me,
one or the other and some money will get you a coffee.
You can exclude god and have a lifetime of successful results, Adding god to a decision making scheme does not make it more successful.
If yes, then we can expect religious people to have better outcomes categorically can't we?
Hi Logan,
I didn't say that foundational assumptions aren't trustworthy. I just said that they necessitate a move beyond the evidence. That doesn't mean they don't have an evidential basis, it just means that they are necessarily underdetermined by the available evidence. Again, that doesn't mean that pragmatic or probabilistic approaches are just a blind stab in the dark, it just means that they rest on certain presuppositions that the evidence doesn't contradict but also doesn't entail.
How is faith different from weighing evidence and making a temporally constrained decision? Again, I don't think its an either/or proposition, but I will clarify what I mean when I use the word "faith." I take faith to consist of three components: belief, trust, and commitment. I have a belief about something (like the existence and goodness of God), I trust in this belief and I am committed to it, which means that faith entails action. That is what is different about God and Japan: I I believe that there exists a grouping of Islands in the Northwest Pacific with certain features, history, etc., but I stake very little on this belief and I am not committed in any significant way to it. My belief in God, in contrast, colors my thoughts, my values, and my actions, because it is not just an intellectual belief but something that for me involves a personal commitment that manifests itself in my actions.
Logan, you said "You can exclude god and have a lifetime of successful results, Adding god to a decision making scheme does not make it more successful." I'm curious again about what you mean by successful, because I will argue that based on faith there are certain things that I wouldn't consider doing in the absence of that faith. Do you just mean achieving the ends that you or I desire when we make a choice? You undoubtedly make certain decisions because you want to live a certain kind of life, and if those decisions allow you to achieve that end than you by your standards are successful, but someone may want to lead a very different kind of life. I want to lead a life that is centered in God, so to be successful in that I will have to do things differently than you would, at least some of the time.
I don't think God is just epiphenomenal for decision making schemes for those who believe in God. As I mentioned earlier, "God" whether or not such an entity exists, clearly can have real effects on decisions. I still wonder what you think it would look like for God to be part of a decision making process.
Hey logan,
why SHOULD you choose the genesis account of creation over the Vedic account?
I choose to believe the bible to be the word of God, or a collection of writtings about God's dealings with people. Upon reading about the vedic account I would say there are many similarities in our beliefs.
Goal and data driven outcomes far and away beat faith based outcomes
Can't say I'm with you on this. If I want to hire someone to do a remodel job in my house, I have lots of resources(data) at my disposal. My Goal is to have my room remodeled and I want it done really well. I look for contractors with good reputations for their work. They have references and I can see actual work that they have done. I can call the better business bereau to see if they have any complaints about them. Call and talk to their references. Once I get bids and look at all the data it's time to make the choice. I pick who looks the best based on my available data. Did I miss anything? It sounds great to this point and I should expect good results because I followed your data driven decision making advice. So when the guy makes a mess of my project then what? Do we say, "well he's only human, and we make mistakes." That mistake of his is now part of my home and I either have to pay more to fix the problems or live with it. I could also have made the choice through faith by prayer and had the same outcome. The element that we can't control in both situations is the human factor of making mistakes. Honest people we'll make good on their promises and contracts and dishonest people won't. Maybe running your project on faith is frowned upon in your circles but not mine. Good results by whatever method your choose is what is desired.
There has to be a reason to give faith based decision making schemes equal value to the more successful data driven methods.
Making what decisions? It's almost like you think we wonder around hoping to be guided in our every move of the day by God. Like every decision made by faith is short on data. Wether you have lots of data or not there comes a time to make a decision. When that times comes to make a decision, I have had more personal success making decisions through faith and prayer.
Post a Comment