tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5128721538893068325..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: John Locke, Progenitor of Deism & Theistic RationalismBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9002948996889742252009-01-04T21:13:00.000-07:002009-01-04T21:13:00.000-07:00Wow, Jon/Gregg,I finally found what you were refer...Wow, Jon/Gregg,<BR/><BR/>I finally found what you were referring to when you accused OFT of intellectual dishonesty for "putting together two sentences which are 40 pages apart without an ellipsis".<BR/><BR/>Pardon me for defending OFT, but shame on you. He pesented two different quotes, clearly on separate lines, therefore separating them with ellipses (which would have implied one continuous quote) would have been the dishonest thing. He refrained form dishonesty by refraining from your recommendation.<BR/><BR/>OFT did the right thing. You not only accused him falsely, but also calimed the dishonest thing as what he should have done. You never bridge over 40 pages with ellipses!<BR/><BR/>Shame, shame, shame.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21805784804738408712009-01-03T21:52:00.000-07:002009-01-03T21:52:00.000-07:00Hi Ben!No, I meant "was".Locke's sentence seems na...Hi Ben!<BR/><BR/>No, I meant "was".<BR/><BR/>Locke's sentence seems narrow, but only if you provide your own logical definition of "reason". Locke's idea of reason was very broad, not unlike that of Kant (I'll always look for a way to bring him in). Reason is our judge in forming knowledge only because that is what reason is, a faculty for judgment. As such, it includes the capacity for forming judgments that are not logical deductions (which is what all learning is, inference of things not strictly dependent on what is already known). Reason is a broad and abstract thing.<BR/><BR/>As for tabula rasa, I am pointing out that there is no contradiction between a doctrine of initially empty minds and initially defective holiness. To make a very weak analogy in computer terms, tabula rasa is like saying a computer as initially purchased has no loaded programs or stored data, but original sin is like saying that a computer as initially purchased is not capable of perfect execution of instructions - it has inherent defects fresh from the factory.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86492350386611290462009-01-03T18:25:00.000-07:002009-01-03T18:25:00.000-07:00I'll do a little more digging; but it's my underst...I'll do a little more digging; but it's my understanding (mainly based on what I've read of scholars interpreting Locke) that Taba Rasa applied to human nature itself. And we see this in Locke's rather "cheery" view of the state of nature, as compared to for instance, Hobbes'.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42396543555382934672009-01-03T18:01:00.000-07:002009-01-03T18:01:00.000-07:00Kristo: >>One must not tempt others to draw ...Kristo: >>One must not tempt others to draw narrow conclusions about Locke from single sentences like "reason must be our last judge and guide in everything".<<<BR/><BR/>The sentence appears to be rather narrow in focus. Do you imply that it is not?<BR/><BR/>In any event, regarding the quoted part;<BR/><BR/>"That reason must be our last judge and guide was not [...]"<BR/><BR/>... did you intend ...<BR/><BR/>"That reason must be our last judge and guide [*us*] not [...]" ?<BR/><BR/>Regarding your question respecting nature and knowledge ...<BR/><BR/>"There is no contradiction that I can imagine between tabula rasa and original sin. One has to do with knowledge, the other with nature (in the Platonic/Scholastic sense)."<BR/><BR/>I'm confused by your qualifcation. All we can have knowledge of is natural. Do you suggest Jon is basing his positon on what is not known?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46990439609646504422009-01-03T16:59:00.000-07:002009-01-03T16:59:00.000-07:00Hi Jon!No, Tabula Rasa is a theory of (lack of) in...Hi Jon!<BR/><BR/>No, Tabula Rasa is a theory of (lack of) innate ideas:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa<BR/><BR/>This is different from original sin, a doctrine of damaged nature:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sinKristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50959278018493550742009-01-03T13:32:00.000-07:002009-01-03T13:32:00.000-07:00There is no contradiction that I can imagine betwe...<I>There is no contradiction that I can imagine between tabula rasa and original sin. One has to do with knowledge, the other with nature (in the Platonic/Scholastic sense). Can you elaborate?</I><BR/><BR/>Tabla Rasa or a "black slate" of human nature, as I understand it, denies man's sinful or fallen nature. A fallen nature by logical necessity denies that man's nature is a "blank slate."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83419940987245044032009-01-03T13:07:00.000-07:002009-01-03T13:07:00.000-07:00Hi Jon!One must not tempt others to draw narrow co...Hi Jon!<BR/><BR/>One must not tempt others to draw narrow conclusions about Locke from single sentences like "reason must be our last judge and guide in everything". Locke had a transcendental view of what reason was, with a solid intuitionist strain as well. That reason must be our last judge and guide was not, for Locke, an exhortation or recommendation but rather a conclusion of his theory. The point was not that we shouldn't accept as knowledge things contrary to reason, but rather that we cannot do so - the relationship of knowledge to reason and intuition is just hard-wired that way.<BR/><BR/>To put it in other terms (not Locke's but my own), if God wanted to reveal something to us he could do so, but to be effective we would perceive the revelation either as reasoned or as intuitive, else we could not know it. Jefferson, I hope to argue in an upcoming post, spent alot of effort seeking such reasoned intuition about Christ (and his possible divinity) through scripture.<BR/><BR/>To only present Locke's summary sentence as such is more likely to mislead than to enlighten.<BR/><BR/>Moving on to tidbits,<BR/><BR/>There is no contradiction that I can imagine between tabula rasa and original sin. One has to do with knowledge, the other with nature (in the Platonic/Scholastic sense). Can you elaborate?<BR/><BR/>Also, why do you make so much of Locke et al using non-biblical arguments? Don't you think that Aquinas, had he lived in their time, would have joined in on the discussion of the state of nature? Christians can be philosophers too, can't we?<BR/><BR/>To acknowledge that public figures (like the founders) could not publicly deny scripture is noteworthy for its implications to the Christian Nation hypothesis. Not that it is conclusive evidence, of course, but if you are going to admit the one but deny the other you should probably make the distinction. <BR/><BR/>To point out that Adams, in private correspondence, is willing to interpret the fall of man as, e.g., allegory for the origin of evil, is unremarkable, unless you are willing to assert that, e.g., all Christians must be young-earth creationsists; to believe anything else disqualifies you (or in this case me) as a Christian. Are you willing to go there? If not, what is your point?<BR/><BR/>As to your summary of Adams on the Trinity ("Adams said that he would not believe revelation delivered DIRECTLY to him BY GOD on Mt. Sinai if it contradicted what his reason told him about the Trinity."), Adams' own words are much more clear (and reasonable) than your summary of them would lead us to believe. God cannot change the sum of two and one (just as I have previously pointed out Kant's position on God's inability to change the number of sides of a triangle), but nothing in Adams' letter suggests that God cannot explain to Adams how the three persons of the Godhead are a unity of some transcendental sort. That said, let us always recall that God did not teach us the Trinity; man devised the Trinity in order to avoid falling into error from sophisticated arguments that seemed to prove heresies from scripture. Adams, it is true, may not have known this - the founders are generally unaware of the content of, or basis for, most tradition and orthodox doctrine. This is all part of that American unorthodoxy and contempt for tradition that I keep pointing out (without allowing that it amounts to a denial of Christianity - instead it defines an unorthodox American Christianity).<BR/><BR/>I'll post shortly on Jefferson, part one of what will probably be two posts.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79367388051836297902009-01-03T11:49:00.000-07:002009-01-03T11:49:00.000-07:00Good post Jon. When it comes to deism I am in com...Good post Jon. When it comes to deism I am in complete agreement with our friendly commentator BPABBOT, who stated in another thread that deism, as a term, is a lot like Christianity...it's as clear as mud. <BR/><BR/>What is a deist? What is a Christian?<BR/><BR/>What makes me believe that you are right is the fact that Jefferson, in his letters, etc., gave Locke so much credit for being one of the primary inspirations for the Dec. of Ind. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, the DOI clearly appeals to rational Enlightenment thought as opposed to an orthodox Trinitarian interpretation of the Bible. In my opinion these facts are pretty clear, even thought I am likely to be attacked by a select few (I'm sure you know who I am talking about) for saying so. <BR/><BR/>Good post.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com