Keith de Rose is a Christian universalist, known to our very own Tom Talbott and Robin Parry. Professionally, he’s a professor of philosophy at Yale, specializing in theories of knowledge. He writes,

The full article is found here: prosblogion.ektopos.com/2013/07/ … existence/

“know” is a strong word when talking to a professor of philosophy, I remember him telling me off for using it Ever since then, I’ve tried to be more circumspect and use phases like: “I think”, “I believe”, “As far as I know”, “As much as I can be confident in knowing anything”

Can you change the thread title to “Christian philosopher suspects nobody knows if God exists”?

this is true. i can’t claim to secret knowledge…i can simply trust. i believe, because God (i believe, this is definitely circular) has made it easy (at least some of the time) to believe. God doesn’t save me through knowing Him (at least not in the empirical sense…i suppose in the Biblical sense we arrive at something a little bit closer to how we may know God), He saves me when i trust in Him.
we must pray for those that honestly have not found it easy at all to believe…those that have not had the circumstances to guide them, or profound inner feelings (as far as they go…we ought not to trust “feelings”…but they can be supporting evidence if we are careful), etc etc

It sounds a little strange to me that we can know God, but not know if He exists?
Jesus did not know?
The disciples did not know?
Is it possible that God did exist, but doesn’t now?
Not being able to prove is not the same as not knowing.
There are strong and weak senses of ‘know’ - if we say that This (and we lay out a particular type of knowing, a concept or definition of knowing) is what ‘knowing’ is, well that sort of stacking the deck has been done - logical positivism is a good example. That particular philosophy has long been discarded.

Another way to hop on the merry-go-round is to focus, not on playing with the word ‘know’, but playing with the words “God” and "exists’. There are many ways to avoid falling on our knees and from the heart saying “Lord Jesus Christ be merciful to me a sinner”. I have taken most of those ways myself, to my regret.

I’m pretty much ‘up’ on the sophisticated arguments surrounding the word ‘know’, but there’s always something new to learn, so I’ll stay tuned…

edit: Logical positivism: The view that the only real things are those which are either empirically provable (we can test them) or logically necessary (1+1=2). All religious, superstitious and supernatural statements are meaningless. …(dictionary def)

edit 2: here’s a snappy little item on ‘knowing’: maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ … ctive.html

edit 3: (last one!) A bit more subtle, but still a short entry: maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ … -hand.html

Allan,

I hope this is okay – there weren’t enough letters permitted, so I left out “suspects” even though that makes it slightly less accurate. I think it will still get the idea across. Let me know if you want me to do it differently.

I know that knowledge is a smoky epistemic concept, but I notice Keith has no problem using “know” to talk about things he expects us to believe he could at least possibly have accurate knowledge about, just like I did at the start of this sentence. (Nor only inferences based on easily tested sense-perception data.)

Now my response . . . I am not a philosopher – I just play one on the internet when I’m feeling uppity and when the expected readers do not include real philosophers . . . . here, they probably do, so all you real philosophers out there, please be patient with me as with a child.

I think that it’s possible to know that God exists with the same assurance that one knows the world exists or that the theory of evolution is fact or that I myself exist. The Matrix (for me) asks the question: “How do you know your life is what you think it is? How do you know you’re not dreaming dreams invented for you by some controlling entity?” Inception similarly asks, “How do you know your world is real? Can you really tell when you’re awake and when you’re in a dream?”

One of the philosophers famously asserts, “I think therefore I am,” and I would agree (me with my poor attempts at logicking) and add, “I think, therefore God is.” It is impossible for us to argue any point at all unless we first agree that you and I can act (thanks, [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] – yes, I’m borrowing your golden assertion thingee.) If we can only react, then our arguments mean nothing. They are only mindless automatic responses to stimuli external and internal and nothing we say to one another contains any actual sense at all. Therefore, we must agree that we are capable of acting – or if we don’t agree on that, there’s no point discussing anything at all.

IF we can act – you and I – if we are rational rather than non-rational beings – then that rationality could not have come from a non-rational source. Non-rationality cannot give birth to rationality. Evolution has its limits. The atheists and agnostics and evolutionists who come to the conclusion that we must all be non-rational beings, bereft of any freedom of will whatsoever, drifting through this anomaly we call “life” and reacting helplessly to the stimuli that nudge us this way or that have a point. The problem is that their point has no meaning and no mooring for they consider themselves and the rest of us to be non-rational beings bereft of any freedom of will whatsoever, drifting through this anomaly we call “life” and reacting helplessly to the stimuli that nudge us this way or that. Why do they bother to argue? They can’t help it – their stimuli have led them to it.

Jason is better at arguing the point that non-rationality cannot produce rationality. I’ve read his arguments, but I’m afraid I couldn’t reconstruct them without re-reading, which I don’t have time for today. Maybe he’ll drop by and summarize. As for me, I am now going to revert to my more natural role as artist and say that I, intrinsically, KNOW that rational beings cannot be produced by non-rational forces. It simply doesn’t work.

I edited this paragraph because it seemed unclear to me . . .
If there is a rational entity, the entity that produced rational beings, that rational being must be OTHER than this world. IT cannot have been produced by the non-rational world – being rational "IT"self. Furthermore, since we humans, who claim to be rational beings (more or less), IF we can act, must have been produced by the original rational entity as we could not have been produced by non-rational forces. Yet the scientists tell us that we were produced by this natural world and its forces. Even the story of the Garden tells us that we were made from the dust of the earth, that the sea was commanded and brought forth living things; that the earth was commanded and brought forth flora and fauna, reproducing after their kind. We were brought forth from (and possibly by) the earth.

Therefore if we, as rational beings, were brought forth of the earth, then the earth and the galaxy that brought forth the earth and the universe that brought forth the galaxy must have been produced by that same rational entity that produced (ultimately) intelligent, rational biological beings such as ourselves. This rational being fills the description of God. So that’s my somewhat less subjective theory as to why I believe that we can know (so far as we can ever know ANYTHING) that above all else we can know, we can know that God does exist. My more subjective theory is, I confess, the more convincing to me, and that is that I know HIM, and just as I wouldn’t question the existence of my mother or my husband or even of my sweet doggies lying before the fire just now, I can’t question HIS existence. That’s not to say I don’t, from time to time, when feeling distant, but then I have my philosophical theories, and flawed as they may be, they bring my feet back to the ground and I “know” that my fears are groundless.

Love, Cindy

While I think such arguments are also persuasive, my formal argument was that trying to argue or otherwise assess the claim either way requires us to grant the golden presumption that we can rationally act (with various characteristics of what that involves compared to non-rational behavior). Since atheism involves a proposition that intrinsically challenges whether there are any actions at all, including the behavior I must presume I am doing in order to argue any point, then I ought to deduct atheism (and any variation of it) out of the list of options to believe.

Still, the arguments against non-rationality producing rationality are important and useful, too. And I talked about several of those in the book, so you weren’t just imagining them.

Now, what Keith is asking is whether I would thereby “really” “know” that God exists. To me this is like asking whether someone can “really” “know” that 2 + 2 = 4. I might be wrong about the validity, or mistaken about the characteristics of the data (maybe it’s really 2 + 3), but that would be inaccurate knowledge or wrong knowledge.

Obviously I’m using “know” as a subjective psychological state in relation to object realities, and that relation may be variously accurate. I don’t try to precisely delineate conceptually between “belief” and “knowledge” – as far as I can tell they refer to the same mental event(s), except that we have a habit in English of having a wider range of expression of strength of assent for “believe” than for “know”.

This, by the way, is why I try not to reply to an opponent who claims to know counter-X vs my X, “You don’t really know that.”

Which book of yours are you referring to, Jason? And how am I going to sneak another book into the house?? Wrap it in a Playboy magazine?? Or maybe that’s backwards, I don’t know
Anyway it sounds like a good read and I’d like to get a copy.

I didn’t read the entire article, but I think I got the gist of it.

I, myself, would say that I am agnostic about God to the extent that I am not 100% sure that He is there. I think we all from time to time have nagging doubts as to whether there is Someone there. Unless you are one who “went to the third heaven” like Paul, the average person is not going to experience God in some actual empirical manner that leaves the existence of God without question. There is still a small element of doubt in my mind simply because I’ve never experience that.

That said, there are myriads of ways that God can be experienced indirectly, if we wish to attribute those experiences to God, whether it is through metaphysical philosophy, mystical events, conviction of heart, conviction of circumstantial evidence, or a reasonable trust in ancient documents.

Sword to the Heart. You can download a free pdf or doc version of it by following the link in the sig, or read a version in bite-sized pieces here on the forum (same link). Cindy is referring to the main topic of Section Two, “Reason and the First Person”.

Jason wrote: “This, by the way, is why I try not to reply to an opponent who claims to know counter-X vs my X, “You don’t really know that.””

Wise words, those. I know that for sure…

Those that demand a ‘stricter’ (in their view) standard of 'knowledge" or “dead certainty” , have just shot themselves in, at least, their foot, because their demands are based on - what? Their choice of criteria? Based on what? This path leads to a vicious circle:

Def: A vicious circle is a complex of events that reinforces itself through a feedback loop.

Sincere agnostics have my sympathy in two ways - first, I’m sympathetic with the choice of being agnostic; it is not a comfortable place, usually, because there is no resting spot - evidence this way and that keeps the target on the move. Then after all the evidence is in (at least as far as one can tell), one realizes that commitment is needed to flesh out reality - that learning that God exists is in many respects, a learning by doing - by repentance, obedience, humility and love, God becomes, to us, more real.

I have sympathy in a secondary sense as well - not to have the comfort, in some measure, that only comes from commitment, well, that’s a loss. I know that lack all too well, but since certain issues have to my satisfaction been resolved (i.e., I know the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ exists), I am getting to a more ‘comfortable’ place intellectually and emotionally.

Work in progress.

Here’s my summary of what I think Keith is saying.

1. We know lots of things. eg. I know I’m sitting in a chair typing this post.

2. Philosophical arguments cannot give us this basic sort of knowledge. This includes philosophical arguments for God’s existence.

3. Earnest believers confidently believe they know many things, but these things are often contradictory. Therefore, they are often wrong in thinking they have true knowledge, no matter how confident they feel. Groundless confidence is common among religious folk (and among people in general).

4. Many earnest believers who confidently claim they know God exists will change their minds at some later point, and confidently claim that their previous confidence was spurious, self-generated, socially conditioned etc. Given this, any believer cannot know that his present knowledge of God is true knowledge.

Over morning coffee, I was talking to a bloke who’d come to do some fencing for me. He said the one thing that put him off organized religion as a youth was the insistence that he believe stupid and impossible things (like Noah’s flood).

If only we Christians would be more honest and realistic about what we do know, and what we don’t know…

Epistemologists give the following definition of “X knows that P” (where “X” is a person and “P” is any logical proposition (a statement which is either true or false but not both nor neither):

1. X believes that P
2. P is in fact true.
3. X possesses sufficient evidence that P is true.

Now 1 and 2 could be the case even when X does not know that P. For example X might believe that his wife is presently in their house. It may be the case that his wife in fact happens to be at home. But yet X may not KNOW that his wife is in their house. In order for X to KNOW that his wife is presently in their house, he must possess sufficient evidence that she is presently in their house. And that is wherein the epistemological problem lies. What constitutes “sufficient evidence”. If she phones him and says she is at home, is that sufficient evidence? Probably not. She may be lying. If his son tells him that he has just come from home and that X’s wife was there, is that sufficient evidence? Seemingly not. The son may have been mistaken or he may be lying. Or X’s wife may have left the house since then. If X goes to his house and SEES that his wife is there, is that sufficient evidence. It would seem so. Yet there are occasions in which we have been mistaken in what we thought we had seen.

Thus it may be impossible to KNOW anything in the absolute sense of the word.

But if we can accept “sufficient evidence” in the usual sense of the word, such as might stand up in a court room, I think it could be said that a person, Joe Bloe can KNOW that God exists.

Suppose that:

1. Joe BELIEVES that God exists.
2. God does in fact exist.
3. Joe has sufficient evidence that God exists.

The question is, “What is Joe’s evidence?” Suppose Joe’s evidence is that he has experienced God’s love flowing through him. Of course one might ask him how he knows it was God that he was experiencing. Well then suppose Joe’s evidence is that he asked God to heal his wife of cancer, and shortly afterward a doctor confirmed that she no longer had cancer. Someone might object that this was coincidental. They might say that sometimes cancer just goes away, and that this just happened to occur shortly after Joe had prayed.

Indeed, could God do anything which would convince everyone of His existence, that could not be explained in some way other than allowing that God did it?

Paidion wrote: “Indeed, could God do anything which would convince everyone of His existence, that could not be explained in some way other than allowing that God did it?”

Outstanding point. I don’t think that saying ‘I know God exists’ is that big a deal, in the sense that, when God was most evident to the children of Israel, that is when they most rebelled. They knew he existed, his signs were right there in the camp, and there was no question of other explanations - and they did not care for his leadership. It was not a matter of knowledge. That’s the anthropology of that.

In any case: Allan. You’re a smart enough guy not to ask questions or make statements that can be answered in a paragraph or two. I think you are basically wrong on points 2,3,4. I rest my convictions on Michael Polayni’s Tacit Knowledge - a very great seminal work in the field - on Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty.

They have in common the deconstruction of Rose’s imagined knowledge of what is ‘knowledge’. You would enjoy Polanyi, Witt maybe not so much - he’s an acquired taste. You might also try the blog of The Maverick Philosopher, who I enjoy quite a bit. His motto, which I have adopted, is:
“Study Everything, Join Nothing”. I like it.

Paidion,

I believe you’ve hit it square on the head. I’ve thought about this quite a lot and I believe that Father did the very best thing that could be done, given our condition, in sending Jesus. The faith comes from Him and He gives it (imo) to those who are ready and willing to receive it. Anyone who doesn’t want to believe in God’s existence will find plenty of reasons not to believe. There are doubtless some who would like to believe (or who pretend to themselves and/or others that they’d like to believe – who knows which it is) who nevertheless find themselves unable to believe. But anyone who prefers not to believe will have little difficulty in doing that.

Blessings, Cindy

Do you think my summary is wrong, or that the argument itself is wrong?

I’m an idealist, myself. I disagree with point 1. I *don’t *know I’m here phuysically, typing this post. I do know I perceive I am. I do know I have a mind, at this moment, because I perceive things. I know this is true, so truth must exist. It seems reasonable to me, at this moment, that truth must always exist, and that an eternal mind must exist etc.

In fact, I’m far more certain I have a mind than I have a body. I know for a fact that I perceive “blue” when I look at the sky. I’m equally certain there’s no such thing as the sky, and that blueness isn’t an ontological characteristic of this non-existent thing. The subjective “blue” is real enough, but the objective “sky” is not.

Anyway, I’m not sure about 2, but I do agree with 3 and 4. People are quite confident they have true knowledge of contradictory things. And people who are quite confident they have true knowledge of God will often change their minds.

The way you state it in that last post, I agree.
BRW that Polanyi book is actually “Personal Knowledge” - I gave an incorrect title.

If God exists, everything will be evidence. And vice versa. In this matter, evidence is irrelevant. Jesus healing the blind man is a great example of how the one event is interpreted in a variety of ways, largely dependent on prior belief.