The night before our Da Vinci Code forum in SIB, I had dinner with Ian the host and others. We were worried abt the Q&A session and tried to prepare for the toughest questions we cud encounter. And I suggested one sticky scenario which may come up: "How do you know that?"
According to Sproul, if you ask this question 7 successive times to any expert in the world on any given topic, he or she will be baffled.
Ironically, this is a problem Descartes tries to solve, which is a very 'foundationalist' problem, really... hehehe...
"How do you know tat?" You are expected to give a criteria to justify that knowledge
When that criteria is given, we will again be asked "Now how do you know tat?"
This can go on and on... a nauseating infinite regress of criteria...
If u can't keep up, he'd just shrug and say, "see? You really dunno, do you?"
It can be given a twist like:
How much/which parts of the other person's theology/philosophy do I have to agree with before I can call him/her a Christian?"
There's an interesting assumption behind the lil' question... ie How much theological errors could we commit before ceasing to be a Christian?
It reminds me of the ancient problem of dropping 'guli' (marble?) one by one on the ground and asking "How many marbles do you have to drop before you get a big heap of marbles?"
Two? Twenty?
25?
103?
When does the small heap now become a big heap? At the 103rd marble?
What's the criteria of 'bigness' or 'smallness' here?
Similarly, the lil' question above seems to ask if we can quantify 'heresy' in measurable terms now?
If not, maybe we have no criteria to tell truth from heresy after all?
Well, I like the answer given by some folks like Moreland and Alvin Plantinga in response...
That though we cannot tell when exactly the small heap of marbles become a big heap, we could confidently tell a small or big heap when we see one.
Some knowledge is properly basic, and we dun need criteria in quantifiable terms to justify them.
It's like if a person asks me at which specific millimeter of the body can we touch before it counts as 'sexual molest'?
Can we touch the head of our female colleagues? Can?
OK, what about a few inches down to the back? Can we touch that and still not be called a molester?
OK, what about going five inches down to the waist, can I put my hands there?
Well, I can't tell the precise milimeter you are allowed to touch, but I can sure tell improper conduct when I see one!
Butt-grabbing is a definite no-no...
Similarly, we cud ask "Am I a heretic if I believe in infant baptism?" Heck no!
OK, what about Montanism? Can I go to heaven if I speak in tongues and claim new revelation?
That's tricky, there's some error with receiving new extrabiblical revelation there but still, tongues ok... It's not that bad. The bible never says people who speak in tongues go to hell wat?
So you go on and on... Does tat mean that there's no way you can tell when a heresy makes one cease to be Christian?
Well, nope. There are clear warnings all over the Scriptures against heresies as well... Here is an interesting list of heresies mentioned here
For example, polytheism (belief in many gods) seems to be out-of-bounds.
Exodus 20:2,3 says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."
Of course, we cud befriend, listen, learn, play marbles, discourse, work with, hire or have as girlfriend/boyfriend(??) a polytheist!
We cud live as next door neighbors, letting him babysit our children and bake him a cake. Oh ya, dun forget to do some orthopraxis and orthopathy jig in our relationship with him ok?
If got time, learn yoga from him too! (??)
Go ahead, do that, of course :)
But I sure won't call him a "Christian", that's for sure.
He probably wud be much offended if I did anyway so be courageous...
Dun be wishy washy about saying in no uncertain terms that polytheism is one error which no Christian oughta commit.
The sign (??) indicates some question marks in my head as well. If u dun agree, gimme a holler at the Comments Section
Comments
I find it helpful to think in terms of a grid like this one:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/grid.htm
I honestly think that Christians in various degrees of theological error can be saved, as long as the essential doctrines are affirmed. Of course, what constitutes essential doctrines is not universally agreed upon. But if we were to start from the vantage point of an evangelical worldview, the above grid seems to be a good representation of our shared beliefs.
In my understanding, God's stipulated condition for salvation is not perfect theological knowledge, but the recognition of the fact that we cannot achieve righteousness on our own. It is Jesus who imputes righteousness unto us (keyword here being 'impute').
To illustrate this, let me say that it is *possible* (but not necessary) for Christians who are universalists to be saved (by the grace of God). This is not to say that universalism is not a grave heresy that is completely unbiblical -- but so long as the Christian knows that his salvation is from Christ, his universalist opinion on whether all peoples are saved or not does not invalidate his salvation.
Universalism contradicts his faith in Christ, but if he nevertheless continues to hold to his saving faith despite the contradiction (and most people have no problems with contradictions in their lives), then he may be saved. Likewise I believe that Roman Catholics who hold to a salvation by faith alone through Jesus, despite the official church teaching on salvation by works and the partial expiation of Christ on the cross, can be saved.
What then is the place for correct doctrine? Well, I think that justification is only one part of the story, sanctification is the other, and the latter becomes very difficult to carry out when one is laboring under a false set of doctrines. For that reason, good theology must exist if for no other reason than to answer bad theology (apologies to C.S. Lewis).
What about polytheism? Can someone who truly believes that Jesus died for him, but also believes in other gods, be saved? I agree the answer must certainly be no because arguably that person is putting his faith in a false god. It seems to me that one cannot meaningfully believe in Jesus' atoning death if one doesn't really know who Jesus is and who He points to. Belief in a caricature of Jesus cannot be held to be the same thing as believing in Jesus Himself.
Aside: of this, the Mormons are particularly culpable. They do this by hijacking Christian vocabulary and redefining all the terms... so they will readily confess to believing that Jesus was the son of God who died to save them, but in their minds salvation means a very different thing and the son of God means the literal son of a corporeal deity.
Aside 2: I believe that yoga, while appearing to be a seemingly innocuous form of exercise, is at odds with the Christian worldview, especially when one reaches the higher levels which is where pantheistic introspection (meditation) kicks in. I think it's one of those things that are lawful but not expedient. It personally think that yoga is not intrinsically bad if practiced as a form of exercise and will probably not be detrimental to strong Christians, but again, scriptures do advise us to flee from temptation. Also, as mature Christians, we are fully aware that Christ has set us free, but we are also exhorted to circumscribe the extent of that freedom so that others may not stumble.
Aside 3: as for the wisdom in having a significant other who is a polytheist, I would say it is contingent upon one's commitment to discontinue that relationship if he/she chooses to persist in that view. Most people I know are not strong enough to do that (that's why pastors are very hesitant to prescribe this sort of view), but it is a fair view in my opinion. Of course, when unequally yoked, one is already on dangerous ground...
I do tend to agree that something doesn't necessarily have to be empirically or measurably justified in order to be considered right or wrong. Much of this paradigm of justification finds its root in Enlightenment thought. But going beyond the Enlightenment, we see something called "intuitive knowledge" that is very rampant in the era of the patristics. It's not entirely contradictory to propositional knowledge, but goes beyond it. Intuitive knowledge affirms the prerogative of the interpretive community (the Church) in determining what is acceptable and what is not, because it is this interpretive community which experiences direct attachment to the subject - God. After all, it is the Holy Spirit Who is the Giver of this community. Coincidentally (or not?), intuitive knowledge is also something which is very much ingrained within the Asian understanding of life and faith.
I have a personal fear that a significant part of the interpretive community today is ignoring its prophetic role of discerning "what is" and "what should be". It's scary sometimes, the way we allow many strange fads and fashions to invade the life of the community.
Thanks for this great entry!
Thanks for the conversation! I am finding out about the inconsistencies that Evangelicals have in deciding who is a Christian and who's not (!) :)
Like the point I brought up about MLK. On one hand, it is claimed that only Christ is able to judge the spiritual condition/eternal destiny of any person.
Yet on the other hand, you had given references to Greg Koukl's "Essential Doctrines" pieces and such statements like this "So you go on and on... Does tat mean that there's no way you can tell when a heresy makes one cease to be Christian? Well, nope. There are clear warnings all over the Scriptures against heresies as well... Here is an interesting list of heresies mentioned here..."
Now that appears to be the opposite of the earlier position, don't you think so? :)
Is it really possible for one to have one's cake and eat it too? But such is the fruit of inconsistency (pardon such strong words!) and I sense that you have only been quite PC here....
I'm very glad you brought up the issue of Montanism, since it can be gathered from the various writings of the Early Church Fathers that they held to some form of Sabellianism and were not Trinitarians.
So are the Montanists Christians in the sense of your definition or are they not since they do not meet the essential doctrines of Greg Koukl...?
Tough, isn't it? :)
Further to the article about MLK, it seems to be that there an unspoken admission that "orthodox theology" does not a liberator make? And even such in the case of Edwards.
Could it be that a trinitarian outlook no matter what how fanciful the emphasis on the "diversity in unity" may be, does not lend strong support to the Civil Rights movement, to the point that MLK had to (rightly?) reject it?
For all such thought and talk, unless translated into empirical reality, it has no practical usefulness...
As you have brought up the issue of Tawheed, the idea of the one ummah can be seen in the practical reality and polity especially in their struggle against the injustices suffered by the Palestinians... Mayhaps orthodoxy is irrelevant in the present dimension and of no practical purposes... pardon my french!
Thanks for pointing out supposed inconsistencies in my views... When you eat the cake, you have it in your stomach i guess! haha...
Ya, it is a tough issue no question abt that. Btw I'm glad that the other friend who avoided me because I reminded him of some hurts caused by other people is no longer avoiding me... He starts writing to me on theological stuffs now, a pendulum swing kinda thing. Maybe i no longer reminds him of the hurts now.. So thanks for praying, guys.
Someone once said in a friend's blog: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds hehe...
And before we go on a tour of exalting the virtues of consistency, maybe, sometimes, truth is more complex than a simple yes and no answer. And to the impatient, it may seem illogical at the first glance.
in the case of MLK, it wud be presumptous for me to say dogmatically he is saved or not. Based on his life and doctrines, we may come to some conclusion.
i.e. If Mr X commits adultery/no repentance and denies essential doctrines of the faith, then I'd have reasons to suppose that he may be a great man and right on many issues, but he may not be a biblical christian.
Greyhound is rite tat we need to be more eclectic in our judgments, u dun need to condemn everything MLK stands just becos he got some things wrong. Even if he's not saved, we sure can learn a LOT from him, can't we? Hope ur not offended I post Gandhi's quotes here... he's not even a sabellian!
Having said tat, do i really know his heart the way God does? Nope. Only Christ is able to judge the spiritual condition of that person. Is MLK willfully suppressing truth? Or is he just having intellectual lapse but having Christ as Lord in his heart?
I am reading his speeches tis weekend, and I think one wud be very hard pressed to show that a non-trinitarian view is necessary to have tat 'practical outcome'.
Of course you may be more knowledgeable in MLK than I am so I'm open to correction again.
Oh! Which essential doctrines did the the Montanists deny, ar? Anything on the koukl's list..
Isnt it wonderful when brothers agree with one another? haha... It's wonderful if they disagree agreeably too, i'm sure!
Ironically people ask this criteria questions are avowedly 'postmodern' in outlook. sigh... maybe this is one instance where 'post modern' is really 'most modern', going beyond an extreme form of enlightenment thinking... instead of offering a critique for it.
Brader Veerasingam,
Thanks for the great comments you wrote, esp the multiple 'asides'... It deserves to be a full post on the Agora blog, man! Please... post stg on kierkegaard there la. We need some fresh stuffs there.
DA Carson says when you see a tension in the bible, dun be afraid to hold it. IMho, ur writeup tried to hold the tension of the existential and intellectual dimensions of saving faith. It's quite nuanced, and consistent, ar
And amen on yoga, if practised at advanced, meditation levels are at odds with christianity, but also agree with u tat as a form of exercise, like eating food offered to idols, may be taken with thanksgiving and sanctified by prayers too.
If weak, dun do it. But i am open to the notion tat we cud redeem it and 'spoil the egyptians' for the glory of god?
Thanks for ur valuable posts. If u dun mind, i'd try to summarise some of the stuffs we covered on kierkegaard's love life one fine day.. it's stimulating stuffs
Your post sounds like good news, as it gives your position a kind of ambiguity I find quite healthy for theological communities(!).
How would you arbitrate between different communities' "guli estimate" of boundaries? One Christian community (characterised perhaps by people like Carson, Geisler, etc.) doesn't accept Persons X, another (consisting of people like McLaren, Grenz, etc.) have no problem with X. How do we decide who's right? And does it matter? If BOTH invoke the 'Guli' solution(?), what next?
I guess what I'm saying is that whilst I'm encouraged by the 'relaxing' of foundationalist muscles (grin), I'm keen to see how you develop the idea further.
Yours,
Al
I'm glad we all relaxed our muscles a bit... hehe...
Perhaps i'd like to make an observation here tat when EC folks criticise foundationalism, what they mean is the cartesian variety.
There seems to be an inability to understand, distinguish and ENGAGE different types of foundationalism which are alive and well...
I haven't seen one who engages Scott Smith's type of foundationalism, for example, even though its free online. Only 'easy' and 'secure' remarks abt how they are all children of Enlightenment philosophy. period.
And tat's sad... i think grenz/mclaren said some great stuffs and carson/geisler said some great stuffs too. We need to be eclectic here, when carson said some good stuffs, some EC folks just harp on how highpitched his voice was and the perceived sarcasm
... tat's no good... similarly i think Grenz is one of the best and fairest theologians around and consider his death a great loss to christianity though i may not agree with him on a lot of things
Accept person X? Well, I accept JWs, Mormons and Muslims as frens... we talk abt our deepest values and so on. Taht's never an issue... I dun think Carson and Geisler wud reject them as persons.
Or maybe u mean some see doctrine X as a clear essential while others dun?
Well i think its possible for people to look at my car and think it's red... while others look at it and think it's green...
Some knowledge is properly basic. And if i have no reason to disbelieve taht my eyes are nor functioning properly, i'd say it's green.
Wat abt those who say it's red? Well, maybe they are color blind!
Do u have reasons to suppose tat Carson does not accept McLaren? Or are those guesses as well? :)
Thanks for the response. But notice you've provided no way to arbitrate between what one group thinks are essentials and what another group thinks. What are the "true" (ahem) essentials? We simply have to HOPE that we're not colour-blind? Huh?
In fact you sound very un-AGORA, almost exactly like John Franke and Grenz (which is great, but somehow I don't think you'll take it as a compliment, *smile*.)
Which then makes me curious why some conservatives are so sure that Emergent (and others who call themselve Christians) are a heresy group? Are they colour-blind? Or does red mean one thing to them, one thing to you and another to Emergent?
As for Carson, I don't think he would consider McLaren a non-Christian (hence your last sentence really should be struck off). But he is VERY critical of Emergent - who's right? Him or McLaren? Or is it just a matter of colours too? (I like red, you like blue, etc etc?)
(Yikes! I'm sounding like AGORA...and you're sounding like EC!!) *GRIN*
Hehe tat sure is a nice progress worth celebrating..
I may be wrong here, abt carson and mclaren...
I dun even have a 'last sentence'. Those were questions. And usually questions end with a question mark like (?) hehehe...
If Carson never considers Mclaren a non-christian, stop whining already with that perpetual 'i'm-so-persecuted-mentality'
oh thanks for asking for more 'criteria'hehehe..
Er... how foundationalist can you get? What happen to those post-found. rhetorics? Closet Cartesian all of a sudden? hehehe....
To clarify a bit, the guli problem simply points out that *some* knowledge is properly basic, and requires no prior proof.
Not all knowledge is basic, some knowledge is built upon the FOUNDATION of basic knowledge :)
On the 'true' essentials i listed out like the christological creeds, as far as i know, Carson, Geisler, McLaren - all believe the chalcedon formula tat Jesus is both God and man :)
And i dun think Carson, Geisler and Mclaren are advocating mindless allegiance to creeds either. I'm sure they reflected on it and come to an informed conviction.
I'm not sure abt *you* but NOBODY thinks they have the freedom to change one or two lines in Chalcedon here! hehehe
So the analogy seems to be tat Carson, Geisler and mclaren are seeing green while you see red... and ask others for criteria of redness!
By the bowels of christ, i beseech u brother, consider it be possible tat u may be color blind for once...
On the issue of whether EC is heresy group, I dun think it is... YET! hehehe
It's still trying to define itself rite?
Is there a way we could tell that EC is heretical or not?
Sure! If u can show me tat EC wants to DENY essential Christian doctrines like salvation by grace thru faith, Christ's dual natures, I can tell you it's out of bounds.
The question is not whether we can 'see' the essentials or not. Nobody accuses EC of heresy because they use candles. Nobody sees candles as an essential!
It seems so hot in here, hope you don't mind me opening another window so that the fresh air can come in. ah.....
I will have to differ with the comment on your friend's blog that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" :)
For if one is inconsistent, wouldn't that affect one's credibility? :))
Reflecting back on what you wrote, would I be not presumptious to assume you DO accept someone heterodox (not subscribing to Trinity for e.g.) as "Christian" as long as he has Christ as Lord in his heart?
It does sound something like, "It doesn't really matter what X believes as long as he loves Jesus" - Yay!
As for the assertion that "...the non-trinitarian view is necessary to have practical outcome," that's what I gather from _your_ reply of Jonathan Edwards and the black preacher. Maybe I've been presumptious on this one, maybe not :)
Oh I thought you've read Jerome - the Montanists held the belief the that Godhead consist of a single person. Anyway most of the later Montanists were of the modalistic camp! But according to Koukl, this means heresy.... (!) such, such, strong and offensive words.
If only Koukl and folks like him were less dogmatic and inconsistent becoming more eclectic, wouldn't the world be a much better place...? smile :)
Right NOW, you *seem* more interested in telling the world who the problem is (mainly, me and Emergent) than you are in offering a solution.
I'm also curious about what you're trying to achieve.
Are you trying to get me to recant my views? That's difficult, esp when you don't seem too keen on exploring the issues I'm interested in, or addressing the questions I've raised, or work on improving your arguments (or adding to them).
Are you trying to warn people about me? Notice that hasn't worked very well either. But then again what good would that do? You'd only create more people who are 'wary' about this fella called Alwyn without actually knowing him personally? You don't find something unhelpful about that?
But what about MY motives? That's simple: I just wanna know how you develop your 'guli thoughts', how you'd arbitrate between different communities' understanding of "how small" or "how big" a problem is, and so on. Your answer seems to be that there's a baseline layer of INDISPUTABLE foundational doctrines, "in addition to" which it gets vague and must depend on community consensus. That's fine (for now).
Still, you may wish to ask if your formulation of the solution is ITSELF open to the 'guli problem', which is EXACTLY what is happening now: Some think emergent is a heresy, but you don't (beware, for this same group might consider YOU a heretic too for disgareeing with them!).
And btw, sexual harrassment is understood differently between countries, cultures, epochs, contexts and so on - surely you are not suggesting the same for theological boundaries? How then can/should we juggle between what's non-negotiable and what isn't? And are there exemptions, 'special clauses' and so on?
I hope a clearer elaboration of the issue is not too much to ask. You don't have to reply immediately (I can take up to a year to get even a draft response out, esp if it's a tough question). In fact, you could just say, "Let me work on that and get back to you." And I'm cool with that. Perfectly acceptable within a missional, generative friendship, :)
You take care.
Your friend,
Alwyn
hehehe... dun worry la, fresh air is always welcome. Thanks for your humility on the MLJ topic :)
Hey, I thought consistency is a 'modernist' virtue??! hahaa... But we dun seem to grow out of it despite all those pomo protestations now, do we?
Yes, consistency is a measure of truth. Imho, bohtea's quote can be read as "holding complex things in tension, by refusing to be too simplistic" hehe...
That eclectic attitude actually increases one's credibility!
Well, nice question, sen! it wud be *presumptious* to assume tat I accept someone heterodox (rejecting deity of Christ for e.g.) as "Christian" as long as he has Christ as Lord in his heart.
What I'm saying is:
"It's up to God whether to 'accept' that person to His heaven, I'm not appointed to be the judge"
All we *can do* is judge based on his doctrines and lifestyles whether this person should be 'accepted' for church membership, ministry collaboration in the gospel etc.
It's like your choice of a lovely born again Christian lady as wife... when you made that choice, do you know 100% certain tat she is a born again believer? Well, nobody knows her heart if her faith is genuine, rite? Only god knows.
But you made the choice to marry her anyway, bcos within reasonable judgement made from her profession and lifestyle etc, didn't you? :)
Is it slightly possible tat she's not a born again Christian?
Sure, but that doesn't mean you can't tell that Ms Madonna or Cik Siti Nurhaliza are not Christians based on what you know from their lifestyle or professions :)
And to insist calling them 'Christians' when they dun really believe or practice christian beliefs/praxis does not make the world a better place... it's dishonest... hardly eclectic, for it forces out their unique particularities with 'christian' labels :(
imho, we dun need to worry about the ugliness of words if it describes an ugly reality, bro :)
"Heresy" is a biblical term. Whenever Jesus or his apostles warn us about it, it is to provide a fence around something precious and beautiful and infinitely valuable
And the truth of God's being in community is a beautiful and precious picture of reality of who God the most worthy Being. We cannot treat it as 'leave it if u dun like' basis
On the montanists, don't be too sure about their modalism. Bcos the 'source' you quoted come from their opponent and it is possible, that they have been accidentally misunderstood! The Fathers have been known for some rhetorical overkill :)
Even if they are heretical, I dun see how conceding it would prove anything? hehee...
Does calling a heresy 'heresy' dogmatic? Not really.
It's no more dogmatic than calling folks who hold to essentials 'dogmatic' lor! :)
Thanks for the chat!
Sorry for the long delay, man.. hehehe..
Give you some cooling off period la.. I'm busy with more constructive projects as well :D
I'm so deeply sorry to hear tat you are colour-blind... thank you for the honest admission!
perhaps, recognising the fact that you know you are colorblind... isn't it humble and wise to be quick to listen when someone tells you that the traffic light is 'red' or 'green'? :)
Not doing so may just increase some road accident statistics!!
And so nice of you to remind me of the 'contextual problem' of sexual harassment...
Alwyn, could you cite me just ONE example where butt-grabbing female colleagues is culturally acceptable? What exemptions or clauses would justify butt-grabbing, ar?? hehehe...
But what IF there is none? :)
If butt-grabbing female colleagues is not wrong in your perspective, my advice is not to seek any more philosophical arguments...
Advice: Seek help!!
I wud luv to put more thinking into recognising 'true colors' and improving arguments against 'butt-grabbing' but when the question is a shallow rehashing of agnostic questions like "How do you know red is red? or how u know rape is wrong?" -
I'm not sure if there's any serious intellectual 'problem' here in the first place hahaa...
Despite claims otherwise, I have already responded to ur question in two ways. (and being color blind, perhaps, one shouldn't be too quick to dismiss them!)
1. Brian McLaren, Tony Jones and the Emergent US folks all affirm in the Trinity and christological creeds ma... don't they?
So who else say Trinity is not an essential Christian doctrine?
If nobody thinks so, it seems like we have a case when everybody sees 'green' while one admittedly colorblind guy insists that seeing 'red' doesn't matter :)
So the question can't even take off
People may disagree abt Emergent or speaking in tongues or infant baptism and so on, but Trinity is NOT one of those disputed issues.
2. What I'm trying to achieve here is also to show that your question, "How can you know if someone disagrees?" is invalid in itself...
Bcos we're not thrown into epistemic chaos everytime someone calls 'red' green, for example.
Just bcos some people think rape is not wrong, doesn't throw me in moral confusion. These people need help!
Similarly, an essential Christian doctrine or practice does not become 'nonessential' simply bcos someone challenges it. Come to think of it, which Christian doctrine or practice has NOT been challenged in some way or other???
hehehe... None! So this question cant even take off to require a more serious argument.
Oh, warning people about you?
Yea, all you blog readers, be forewarned - Alwyn has a dangerous sense of Jim Carrey humor! hehee...
C'mon, man... be fair la... now you are 'warning' people with a lot of speculations into my 'motives' now, eh?
please dun need to be perasan, bro. This is not about you as a person. It never has.
I still smile at you at the 7 Jesus Emergent meeting rite? hehe
How come u din challenge Collin Nunis when he says we all believe in the *same* jesus? :)
But it is about confronting your errorneous 'views' lor.
Whether it has worked or not God knows la, hehehe...
Whether people laugh at your jokes or personally take you to mamak is not really my concern. Dun wanna be busy body...
But when someone goes around publicly teaching other Christians that 'propositional' ecumenical creeds like Nicene & Chalcedon are not essential Christian beliefs, we are responsible to 'question' those views, rite?
Since nobody in the EC conversation wanna do the dirty work, so I had to reluctantly do it ler... Sigh.. :(
Lastly, lemme say that you DID RAISE a good question i.e. and it is NOT framed as an assertion like Trinity is not an 'essential'
It is a Good Question:
"How do we arbitrate between different understandings of "how small" or "how big" a problem is?"
My basic response is to question your assumed skepticism by pointing out that we are not reduced to agnosticism just because somebody disagrees.
It's simply absurd and counter-intuitive as Sherman astutely pointed out, ahem, ahem..
So far, I *merely* aim to show the obvious fact that 'we can know *SOME* things truly without criteria' before going on to build on those 'foundational' knowledge, how we know whether a specific X issue (emergent?) is 'big' or 'small'.
So if we are agreed that we CAN have some access to reality beyond language and culture, i.e. see the colors in the traffic light, perceive that butt-grabbing is immoral, then it wud be possible to move *FORWARD*
But if u still insist that butt-grabbing is culturally conditioned and can't tell 'green' from 'red', what use is talking about trinity or emergent??? hehehe...
How could you tell who I am?? So obvious, meh?
Still recall who i am? We met at the JAZZ club in DOWNTOWN minneapolis, Hennepin avenue.
But puhlease.. don't call me Mr Jazz. I just play for fun. My real name is Meng Wai Sen, from uni of minnesotta!
I may start my own blog soon.
ehy, the god you believe in is different from the God i worship.
I dun believe in a God only interested in getting right beliefs is so important.
Adios!
This little conversation with Al has continued here at Agora with more fruitful results :)