per se notum - How is God Known?

[Ishmael]

Thomas Aquinas
Disputed Questions on Truth, Question 10, Article 12:
Whether God’s existence is known through itself (per se notum) by the human mind just as the first principles of demonstration which cannot be thought not to be.

"For some have said, as Rabbi Moses relates, that God’s existence (Deum esse) is not known through itself, nor is it known from a demonstration, but is accepted only on faith; and the weakness of reasons which many put forward for demonstrating that God existence led them to this position. Others, such as Avicenna, said that God’s existence is not known through itself but is known through demonstration. But others, such as Anselm, thought that God’s existence is known through itself, insofar as, no one can understand interiorly (cogitare interius) that God does not exist, even though one can say this exteriorly, and understand interiorly the words by which it is said."

[mattbballman19]

Yo,

I would say that God is known, in the generally epistemic sense of the word, via the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit (of course, if we're talking about the Christian God). The Holy Spirit testifies to our hearts that this is the way to go. We are rational because our belief and faith in the Holy Spirit's testification is a propery basic belief. If you are not familiar with the epistemic literature expounding upon proper basicality, I'll familiarize you with it.

matt

[Ishmael]

mattbballman19:
Yo,

I would say that God is known, in the generally epistemic sense of the word, via the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit (of course, if we're talking about the Christian God). The Holy Spirit testifies to our hearts that this is the way to go. We are rational because our belief and faith in the Holy Spirit's testification [sic] is a propery [sic] basic belief. If you are not familiar with the epistemic literature expounding upon proper basicality, I'll familiarize you with it.

matt

Yo, YO!

I would find further elucidation on a few other things you have mentioned here...

~Like the definition of "heart."
~Or "internal instigation"
~The notion that rationality is a cause of "belief and fatih"

And of course, "...epistemic literature expounding upon proper basicality[sic]..."

[mattbballman19]

By heart I mean that part of you that makes you you. Your conscience, ego, etc . . .

The term 'internal instigation' was perposed by Calvin to explain the the action that the Holy Spirit takes part in, in order to testify to the truth of Christianity. It would be part of the Christian/religious experience. Of course, this is unprovable. If someone were to come up to me and tell me that they had just seen blue elephants with wings being elevated off the ground by ants I would be inclined to doubt the veracity of the claim and/or the trustworthiness and/or sanity of the claimer. But if the claimer is not lying, then the experience would be the main reason the claimer would say and believe that in the first place. Suppose that once the claimer led me over to where he saw that extraordinary event everything went back to the way things normally are. Suppose that me and claimer are equally puzzled. The extraordinary experience that is still within the memory of the claimer would serve as a, what epistemologists call, a defeater for any empirical evidence that might be piled up against his memory belief. That belief would be basic for him (a belief which is obvious to him; not inferred from self-evident propositions or propositions which are derivative of self-evident propositions).

What makes the claimer irrational is the fact that his belief in the blue elephants and strong ants are not PROPERY basic. The belief is not formulated from proper funtioning cognitive faculties in a congenial epistemic environment successfully aimed at truth. Let me be a little more specific.

X is a properly basic belief for person P if and only if X is derived from properly functioning cognitive faculties, X is forumlated in a congenial epistemic environment, P is in an environment such that it is suited for the production of X.

The claimer from the illustration above would not satisfy the first and last sufficient condition, thereby making it an unjustified belief and, therefore, and insufficient claim to knowledge.

Now, under the presupposition that we are living within the Christian universe, then a belief in God (specifically the Christian God) would be a properly basic belief. Calvin believes (on the basis of the hypothetical possibility that we are living in a Christain universe) that God would have equipped humans with a kind of 'God dedector' that he named the 'sensus divinatus'. This is what the Holy Spirit would work through in order to testify to the believer (through this particular religious experience) the truth of the Christian religion. That is its justification. It would be internally and externally rational because we are being consistent with that experience, and because of the fact that we are living in the Christian universe.

Of couse that begs the question of whether Christianity is in fact true. Christian epistemologists claim that the reasons and evidences for Christianity are more plausible than any postulated defeaters. And even if one of those defeaters were to succeed (say the problem of evil), we would have a defeater-defeater (the Christian experience) for any alleged defeaters. Of couse, this would only preserve internal rationality and justification, but not external rationality. But as long as justification is involved then the sufficient conditions for the classical definition of knowledge are satisfied and it is, therefore, a way we can have knowledge of God.

The literature, which articulates the above with much more clarity and precision, is Alvin Plantinga's trilogy: Warrent: The current debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warrented Christian belief.

matt

[Bill K.]

"Known" is an ambiguous term here. Do you mean 'known' as in our "sense" of His existence, or 'known' in the sense of our relationship to His person?

The first question it seems can only to be "answered" by philosophical speculations, unless one wishes in invoke Ps. 14 by fiat; the second, only by historical revelation ie., by His own "demonstration."

The first seems to revolve around the nature of our "receptor" point. Is it a priori, or not? Or, in the common mans language, Do we have a God-sized hole in our heart? C.S. Lewis saw the sense of the "noumena" as a priori. So do many others.

Still, and most importantly, without God's own historical revelation, our speculations could get no further than Plato or Aristotle. Without revelation, we would have to suspect that our god-sense was some kind of after-effect of evolution...a sort of post-development divine nausea. Without revelation, we could never "know" that we are "known."


On a side point...

Perhaps you have experienced things differently, but I have never known a person to become a Christian via philosophical persuasions with regard to God's ontological necessity in and of itself, or as the underpinnings of our ability to reason, experience morality etc. On the other hand, I have found His own revelation of Himself to be very effective.

I think these musing are best used for our own edification and defense, so are good in themselves. But sadly, they are often used for "making converts" rather than used as tools of war, as in fact, I suspect they should be. Just some thoughts.

In Christ,
Bill

[Ishmael]

Bill K.:
"Known" is an ambiguous term here. Do you mean 'known' as in our "sense" of His existence, or 'known' in the sense of our relationship to His person?

I meant to ask, "know as in our sense of His existence."

The first question it seems can only to be "answered" by philosophical speculations, unless one wishes in invoke Ps. 14 by fiat; the second, only by historical revelation ie., by His own "demonstration."

No fiat. I wish to philosophically "speculate."

I am interested in what you mean by "historical revelation"?

The first seems to revolve around the nature of our "receptor" point. Is it a priori, or not? Or, in the common mans language, Do we have a God-sized hole in our heart? C.S. Lewis saw the sense of the "noumena" as a priori. So do many others.

As do I.

Still, and most importantly, without God's own historical revelation, our speculations could get no further than Plato or Aristotle. Without revelation, we would have to suspect that our god-sense was some kind of after-effect of evolution...a sort of post-development divine nausea. Without revelation, we could never "know" that we are "known."

I agree.

On a side point...

Perhaps you have experienced things differently, but I have never known a person to become a Christian via philosophical persuasions with regard to God's ontological necessity in and of itself, or as the underpinnings of our ability to reason, experience morality etc. On the other hand, I have found His own revelation of Himself to be very effective.

Perhaps, but your experience reflects a very brief period of Christian history. I, on the other hand, have known of people who were converted on the basis of philosophical, logical argument. Even historically (as you mentioned above in terms of "historical revelation") this has happened numerous times.

I think these musing are best used for our own edification and defense, so are good in themselves. But sadly, they are often used for "making converts" rather than used as tools of war, as in fact, I suspect they should be. Just some thoughts.


In Christ,
Bill

I would also be interested in why you felt the need to bring forth the supposed irrelevance of Philosophy to Evangelism...? I totally disagree with this premise and I do not think you could defend it.

[Bill K.]

Calv.
Don' t take my hack on philosophy too seriously. I do think it can be a tool for evangelism, but what I see more often is the misuse of it to score points against the unbeliever. The arrogance of some Christians in this regard is mind-boggling.

But still, philosophy without gospel...hmmmm

Your points of agreement reflect my own position also. I also think the idea of God is a priori to all humanity. I would add to this argument our sense of beauty (aesthetics), as being in direct link with the noumena.

As for evangelism, I'm glad your experience is different than mine. It offers hope for the science.

As for Historical revelation... I refer to all those EVENTS in Scripture whereby God reveals who he is by means of a historical act: from parting the Red sea...to the Resurrection of Jesus. In particular, all those things that are "proclaimed." I make the distinction between what we say about these things (dogmatic theology) and the things themselves. Many do not.

In Christ,
Bill

[ollie]

Through someones preaching and teaching the word of God; one hears and comes to know of God.
The receptive heart will be pricked by this sword of the Holy Spirit
and will not only come to a knowledge of God but will believe God
with abiding faith.

[ollie]

[QUOTE]02-20-2003 @ 01:41 PM
Calvinist:

I would also be interested in why you felt the need to bring forth the supposed irrelevance of Philosophy to Evangelism...? I totally disagree with this premise and I do not think you could defend it.

Calvin himself was greatly influenced by men's philosophy. This interacted on his thoughts and interpretation of scripture and led him into many errors.

Why not just scripture, the word of God?
Man's philosophy can be flawed and non edifying. It is uninspired.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

God tells us His inspired word is all that is needed.

There is danger for unGodly error creeping in with the mere words of men. One may not even consciously realize it. Satan is always trying to deceive. But one can be sure with God.

I am not saying don't read men's philosophy. However one has to be careful of its taking over and becoming the way.

Only God's word should be the evangelism tool. It is His word we are commanded by Christ to teach and preach.

[Ishmael]

02-23-2003 @ 06:31 AM
ollie:
Calvin himself was greatly influenced by men's philosophy. This interacted on his thoughts and interpretation of scripture and led him into many errors.

And what "errors" would those be oh wise one of the thread hijacking arts? Stay on topic.

Why not just scripture, the word of God?
Man's philosophy can be flawed and non edifying. It is uninspired.

No. You are uninspiring. Stay on topic or leave my thread.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

I agree but it has nothing to do with our topic. You could've used Scripture to demonstrate how we can know God but instead you come into my thread and bash Calvin and then preach. Maybe you didn't realize that you were going to be seen as offensive and boring by trying to hijack this thread?

God tells us His inspired word is all that is needed.

And what reference were you going to sight to "prove" this tired platitude?

There is danger for unGodly error creeping in with the mere words of men. One may not even consciously realize it. Satan is always trying to deceive. But one can be sure with God.

Irrelevant to the topic of this thread. And you cannot prove this statement with the Bible. I reject it out of hand.

I am not saying don't read men's philosophy. However one has to be careful of its taking over and becoming the way.

I doubt you read anything, including the Bible.

Only God's word should be the evangelism tool. It is His word we are commanded by Christ to teach and preach.

And what reference were you going to sight to "prove" this tired platitude?

No one asked you to give your opinion about the things you have talked about in this post. If you want to talk about some subject other than what the thread starter wanted then you should make your own thread and then people can either participate or ignore you. I don't appreciate your butting in and I hope you realize that you are offensive and buffoonish in your sermonizing.

[Ishmael]

02-23-2003 @ 05:55 AM
ollie:

Through someones preaching and teaching the word of God; one hears and comes to know of God.
The receptive heart will be pricked by this sword of the Holy Spirit
and will not only come to a knowledge of God but will believe God
with abiding faith.

I reject the Weslyian/Arminian view of salvific operation altogether.

If you would like to attempt to prove this view of "salvation," which is not the same as the philosophical knowledge of God, then do so in another thread.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

02-23-2003 @ 07:31 AM
ollie:



Calvin himself was greatly influenced by men's philosophy. This interacted on his thoughts and interpretation of scripture and led him into many errors.

Why not just scripture, the word of God?
Man's philosophy can be flawed and non edifying. It is uninspired.

When Paul preached to the philosophers on Mars Hill, even he resorted to engaging with their own religio-philosophical ideas---to win them. We are not amiss if we follow this scriptural apologetic example and engage meaningfully with the philosophic thought of our time.

BTW, exactly what "errors" do you see that Calvin made as a result of his involvement with "men's philosophy?" Just wondering.

[Bill K.]

It seems my remarks concerning the misuse of philosophy as a means to know God have unduly monopolized this thread and sent it off in an unintended direction. My apologies to the thread starter.

Still, let me clarify my position before moving on. I see "philosophy" as a tool, not for obtaining the knowledge of God, but for the dismantling of the already philosophically-induced errors that hinder folks from coming to Christ. This was Lewis' basic take on it, and I am in agreement.
Here, philosophy can only be valid in the hands of those who already are grounded in the faith: Revelation proceeds Philosophy. It is this revelationally-informed "philosophy" that can help some unbelievers overcome their otherwise insurmountable intellectual obstacles. Enough said.

The question of the thread, however, is concerned with how a philosophical knowledge of God is obtained, not whether we/I see it as problematic. Correct?

On to the subject...

While I do think it is possible to think philosophically about God, I think this "thinking" is almost always erroneous when it begins from "scratch." The reason for this is found in the nature of the philosophical art. Philosophy begins (usually) with first principles. These, generally speaking, are propositions coloured by cause/effect-type thinking aka., Aristotle/Plato. The Biblical God, on the other, reveals himself first and foremost as person, not principle. Oftentimes, the amalgam of previous cause/effect theories of the deity and Christian God has caused us immeasurable harm.

Knowing this, it still remains a curiousity for Christian thinkers to know HOW our divine thinking begins. Or, to put it Platonically:

"If we do not have any intellectual capacity for God as an object of thought, how could we ever know Him even if we encountered Him?"

While secular theistic philosophies build from scratch, I would propose that a better avenue of approach for the Revelationist would be to simply limit the enterprise to defining and explaining the Divine-intuition, the sense of "Other." Or, as Lewis et al. have termed it, the sense of the Noumena (as defined in the book, "The Idea of the Holy", for example.)

This leads me back to that quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For some have said, as Rabbi Moses relates, that God’s existence (Deum esse) is not known through itself, nor is it known from a demonstration, but is accepted only on faith; and the weakness of reasons which many put forward for demonstrating that God existence led them to this position. Others, such as Avicenna, said that God’s existence is not known through itself but is known through demonstration. But others, such as Anselm, thought that God’s existence is known through itself, insofar as, no one can understand interiorly (cogitare interius) that God does not exist, even though one can say this exteriorly, and understand interiorly the words by which it is said."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see both these men as saying something important to our knowledge of God. Together I might have them saying, "We have an intuition but that intuition is only for the perception of the demonstration." I would like to term this the Creational Model.

Our intuition, on its own, when giving over to first principle-type system building has proven itself to be vacuous. Demonstration, on its own, fails miserably to make contact with the unbeliever.

I'll stop here. Am I on track, Cal, or do I need to move the thought somewhere else? I'll respect your wishes here.

In Christ,
Bill

[Ishmael]

This is all very well said Bill and precisely on topic.