What is knowing?

[Papa Zoom]

I obviously anticipated you showing me that the term Messiah means anointed one, since I used that expression (anointed one) deliberately in post #75.
But what does anointed one mean? It is referencing Jesus who is the Image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15. Is Jesus sent by God? John 5:23. Scripture identifies the Christ/Messiah/anointed one, as Jesus the True Image of God sent by God.

The Anointed One is a title. True Image of God is descriptive of who He is.

 

[childeye]

The Anointed One is a title. True Image of God is descriptive of who He is.

Exactly. Well said. And knowing Him is about a personal relationship one on one with the Holy Spirit Who testifies to Him and His son.

He defines the good even as he convicts us of sin.

 

[Runner]

No time to read the entire thread, which I'm sure is fascinating, but I do currently happen to be reading Alvin Plantinga, who is one of the leading philosophers of the past 50 years as well as a leading Christian apologist. His specialty is epistemology, which is basically the branch of philosophy dealing with how we "know" things.

Plantinga points out that you can "believe" something to be true, and it can in fact be true, but your belief may be based on entirely false reasoning or reasons. It is pure dumb luck that your belief corresponds to the truth. Such a belief is "unjustified" (or lacks "warrant" in Plantinga's terminology). To qualify as "knowledge," it must be based on sound reasoning and sound reasons.

You believe that your car is going to break down on the highway to Phoenix. You believe this because you are mentally disturbed and believe the highway is haunted by demons that pick on Fords. I believe it is going to break down on the highway to Phoenix too. I believe this because I know the mechanic at the Ford dealer forgot to put in any new oil when you thought he had changed the oil. Your car does break down. Both beliefs were correct, but only mine was based on sound reasoning and sound reasons and had warrant.

Plantinga believes that some beliefs are "properly basic" and do not require any evidence or proofs. His greatest contribution to philosophy has been his argument that a belief in God can be "properly basic" and have "warrant" even without supporting evidence and arguments. Belief in God is not mandatory, of course - atheists are not necessarily lesser thinkers because they don't believe in God - but a believer can legitimately claim to have a justified belief in God independent of any evidence or arguments.

My thinking, influenced by my own experiences and the writings of many religious sages, has always been that intuition is a higher form of "knowing" than deduction and is the means by which we approach God. This is basically how Plantinga describes faith - a higher form of knowing independent of evidence and arguments. Related to this is the concept of the sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity") that Calvin and others have suggested all humans possess.

So whether you want to say you "know" of God through intuition, faith, the sensus divinitatis or the calling of the Holy Spirit, the fact is that speaking of "knowing" in this way, independent of evidence and arguments, is philosophically acceptable. It is not the same sort of knowing as knowing that your Ford is in your garage, of course, but it is a species of knowing that goes beyond mere "hoping" (or, as atheists like to say, "magical thinking").

The book of Plantinga's that I happen to be reading - which is one of his most interesting and relatively easy to follow (as serious philosophy goes) - is Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098.

 

[Papa Zoom]

No time to read the entire thread, which I'm sure is fascinating, but I do currently happen to be reading Alvin Plantinga, who is one of the leading philosophers of the past 50 years as well as a leading Christian apologist. His specialty is epistemology, which is basically the branch of philosophy dealing with how we "know" things.

Plantinga points out that you can "believe" something to be true, and it can in fact be true, but your belief may be based on entirely false reasoning or reasons. It is pure dumb luck that your belief corresponds to the truth. Such a belief is "unjustified" (or lacks "warrant" in Plantinga's terminology). To qualify as "knowledge," it must be based on sound reasoning and sound reasons.

You believe that your car is going to break down on the highway to Phoenix. You believe this because you are mentally disturbed and believe the highway is haunted by demons that pick on Fords. I believe it is going to break down on the highway to Phoenix too. I believe this because I know the mechanic at the Ford dealer forgot to put in any new oil when you thought he had changed the oil. Your car does break down. Both beliefs were correct, but only mine was based on sound reasoning and sound reasons and had warrant.

Plantinga believes that some beliefs are "properly basic" and do not require any evidence or proofs. His greatest contribution to philosophy has been his argument that a belief in God can be "properly basic" and have "warrant" even without supporting evidence and arguments. Belief in God is not mandatory, of course - atheists are not necessarily lesser thinkers because they don't believe in God - but a believer can legitimately claim to have a justified belief in God independent of any evidence or arguments.

My thinking, influenced by my own experiences and the writings of many religious sages, has always been that intuition is a higher form of "knowing" than deduction and is the means by which we approach God. This is basically how Plantinga describes faith - a higher form of knowing independent of evidence and arguments. Related to this is the concept of the sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity") that Calvin and others have suggested all humans possess.

So whether you want to say you "know" of God through intuition, faith, the sensus divinitatis or the calling of the Holy Spirit, the fact is that speaking of "knowing" in this way, independent of evidence and arguments, is philosophically acceptable. It is not the same sort of knowing as knowing that your Ford is in your garage, of course, but it is a species of knowing that goes beyond mere "hoping" (or, as atheists like to say, "magical thinking").

The book of Plantinga's that I happen to be reading - which is one of his most interesting and relatively easy to follow (as serious philosophy goes) - is Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098.

Excellent contribution to this discussion. I had forgotten about Plantinga. I've read articles and quotes by him but no books that I can recall.

 

[Nathan]

I appreciate people who think deep.

The biggest take away for me is this one thing. Everyone in Christ has the ability to know, the absolute truth, of whatever God chooses to speak to them about. It may or may not agree with what other people say is the truth, but it does not negate the ability to know it.

Its not a matter of making others convinced you know the truth, but convincing them that they can know the truth.

I find it most satisfying to know that someone else has reached that point of faith.

 

[Runner]

I just recalled an almost perfect illustration of how the "knowing" debate works ...

Twenty years ago, I was one of the 4 or 5 most active participants on the forum of the International Association for Near-Death Studies. The NDE community was very hostile to Christianity, and I was one of the main targets.

My principal nemesis was Cloe, who had experienced two NDEs but was, curiously enough, a militant atheist. (Many atheists do not dismiss the possibility of an afterlife.)

In my running battle with Cloe, her point was always that I merely "believed" the nonsense I spouted, whereas she "knew" the truth because she was an NDE experiencer. Her knowledge trumped my belief.

But wait, I said. Here on the forum we also have Pat, who is a fellow NDE experiencer and a devout Christian. Why is what Pat "knows" not entitled to the same respect as what you know?

Oh, that's easy, Cloe replied: Pat's brain is not working properly! She's delusional. If she's a Christian, then by definition she's delusional.

This is the core problem in discussions between Christians and atheists. Through the calling and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians maintain that they have knowledge of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Alvin Plantinga would agree. These beliefs are "properly basic," and you may justifiably hold a properly basic belief without evidence or arguments so long as your mental processes are functioning properly.

Well there you go, say the atheists: If you're a Christian, then by definition your mental processes aren't functioning properly! You're delusional, a victim of magical thinking.

And never the twain shall meet.

 

[Nathan]

I've always found that when I know something I want others to know it also, but if they don't it just means they don't.

I don't have to have other people confirm to me that I know the truth.

I think a lot of people who say they know the truth, but have to be acknowledged in order to be confident, don't actually know the truth.

Where true knowledge exists there is no doubt.

 

[Free]

I obviously anticipated you showing me that the term Messiah means anointed one, since I used that expression (anointed one) deliberately in post #75. So I already knew that, and therefore agree with you.

But what does anointed one mean? It is referencing Jesus who is the Image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15. Is Jesus sent by God? John 5:23. Scripture identifies the Christ/Messiah/anointed one, as Jesus the True Image of God sent by God.

Obviously. I'm not into playing your game. You said that "the term Messiah actually means the true Image of God sent by God," but it does not. You can say that the Messiah is the true Image of God sent by God, but you cannot say that that is what the term Messiah means.

 

[childeye]

I just recalled an almost perfect illustration of how the "knowing" debate works ...

Twenty years ago, I was one of the 4 or 5 most active participants on the forum of the International Association for Near-Death Studies. The NDE community was very hostile to Christianity, and I was one of the main targets.

My principal nemesis was Cloe, who had experienced two NDEs but was, curiously enough, a militant atheist. (Many atheists do not dismiss the possibility of an afterlife.)

In my running battle with Cloe, her point was always that I merely "believed" the nonsense I spouted, whereas she "knew" the truth because she was an NDE experiencer. Her knowledge trumped my belief.

But wait, I said. Here on the forum we also have Pat, who is a fellow NDE experiencer and a devout Christian. Why is what Pat "knows" not entitled to the same respect as what you know?

Oh, that's easy, Cloe replied: Pat's brain is not working properly! She's delusional. If she's a Christian, then by definition she's delusional.

This is the core problem in discussions between Christians and atheists. Through the calling and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians maintain that they have knowledge of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Alvin Plantinga would agree. These beliefs are "properly basic," and you may justifiably hold a properly basic belief without evidence or arguments so long as your mental processes are functioning properly.

Well there you go, say the atheists: If you're a Christian, then by definition your mental processes aren't functioning properly! You're delusional, a victim of magical thinking.

And never the twain shall meet.

When discussing the difference between knowing and believing, it's easy to get confused with the semantics that are bound to occur. I've had my conversations with atheist's on this subject and find it essential to not lose sight of the original meanings of words used, since they suddenly lose any concrete meaning when applied to the abstract. For example, "I know that all things are built upon faith". Such a statement suggests that knowing and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Atheist's consistently lose such arguments since they cannot deny that one cannot prove nor disprove that Love/empathy is or isn't Eternal. It's really important how the question being debated is framed.

 

[childeye]

Obviously. I'm not into playing your game. You said that "the term Messiah actually means the true Image of God sent by God," but it does not. You can say that the Messiah is the true Image of God sent by God, but you cannot say that that is what the term Messiah means.

I think a poster here said it well. "The Anointed one" is a title, and "The True Image of God sent by God" is descriptive. I have already agreed on record with your analysis of the term.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I've always found that when I know something I want others to know it also, but if they don't it just means they don't.

I don't have to have other people confirm to me that I know the truth.

I think a lot of people who say they know the truth, but have to be acknowledged in order to be confident, don't actually know the truth.

Where true knowledge exists there is no doubt.

If you'd lived in the time of Galileo your truth would have been that the earth was stationary and you'd cite the biblical text to prove you were right.

 

[childeye]

If you'd lived in the time of Galileo your truth would have been that the earth was stationary and you'd cite the biblical text to prove you were right.

That's funny, but how do you "know" that? Isn't that an assumption?

 

[Nathan]

If you'd lived in the time of Galileo your truth would have been that the earth was stationary and you'd cite the biblical text to prove you were right.

Interesting. Do you know this, or assume this?

 

[Nathan]

That's funny, but how do you "know" that? Isn't that an assumption?

That's funny. I replied before I saw yours.

 

[Papa Zoom]

That's funny, but how do you "know" that? Isn't that an assumption?

That was the predominate scientific and religious view at the time.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Look it up.

 

[Papa Zoom]

So it is not surprising that when in 1543 Copernicus published his famous work On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs, in which he advanced the view that the earth and the planets orbited the sun, this startling new scientific theory was called into question by Protestants and Catholics alike. It is alleged that even before Copernicus published his book, Martin Luther had rejected the heliocentric point of view in rather strong terms in his Table Talk (1539):
There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must … invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. 3

 

[Papa Zoom]

From
SEVEN DAYS THAT DIVIDE THE WORLD THE BEGINNING ACCORDING TO GENESIS AND SCIENCE
JOHN C. LENNOX

 

[childeye]

That was the predominate scientific and religious view at the time.

I can't doubt the probability of your conclusion and maintain any semblance of humility in all honesty. I must concede that we are all ignorant in some degree to certain facts. But "knowing" God as a Person in the moral/immoral paradigm, is not the same as "knowing" amoral scientific facts about the universe.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I can't doubt the probability of your conclusion and maintain humility in all honesty. I must concede that we are all ignorant in some degree to certain facts. But "knowing" God as a Person in the moral/immoral paradigm, is not the same as "knowing" amoral scientific facts about the universe.

That's not my argument. Has nothing to do with what I said.