http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness Helping plans come together, one post at a time Sun, 03 May 2015 14:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9 http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1166 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:30:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1166 DJ, here is how the above statements are self-refuting (whether or not Franke said them as stated here):
The statement We cannot speak of God is self-refuting because the statement itself (or, more accurately, the person saying it), is speaking about God. It's content basically states that God is such that we cannot speak of Him, yet this says something about God. If the statement is true, then it (or the person stating it) contradicts itself (or himself or herself).
The statement The truth is that there is Truth, but not for us, only for God is a bit more tricky, for though it uses a lower case t for truth, it purports to be an upper case T Truth. There are two kinds of truth being talked about: contextual, localized, lower case t truth and universal, timeless, upper case T Truth. What Franke appears to be saying is that there is no universal, timeless, upper case T Truth for us, only for God. But in doing so, he is either saying that this is a contextual, localized, lower case t truth which is true for his particular context and location but not for anyone else, or this is a universal, timeless, upper case T Truth which is true for everyone else. So, if the former, then Franke is only talking about his own particular context and location, not mine or yours or anyone elses; if the latter, then he is claiming that the universal, timeless, upper case T Truth is that there is no universal, timeless, upper case T Truth, which, per the above example, is self-refuting. R. Scott Smith makes this point in Truth & the New Kind of Christian: the emerging effects of postmodernism in the church.
The statement There are no comprehensive views is like the first statement. It purports to be a comprehensive view, and if it is true, then it contradicts itself.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1165 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:07:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1165 Thanks for entertaining my inquiry. I'm afraid that the philosophical semantics here is a little bit over my head, even after reading every word in these posts, and I'm not able to discern what precisely is self-refuting. I'm guessing it is different than self-contradictory?
One reason a paper might not be freely distributed is if there is a revision in the works, or a potential publication in the works. Some people and some organizations are somewhat careful about distributing papers and information, which others (like bloggers) are pretty free to share info and tenative opinions.
As for obtaining John Franke's paper, one way to approach it is to contact him directly. His contact info can be found at
http://www.biblical.edu/pages/discover/faculty-directory.htm

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1162 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:21:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1162 Of course I'm interested in asking him for it. Where do I ask? I think it'd be great if we could get both papers on here.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1161 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:01:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1161 Seems like he'd rather a paper be available than not avaiable. You've had good luck going right to the source before. Any interest in trying to ask him for it?

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1164 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:59:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1164 “Taking what he said about our inability to speak of God at face value” I'd like to read in context where he said this, rather than interpret it from afar.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1163 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:55:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1163 Bill, I am not assuming that Franke “is saying what Derrida said and meant.”
What I am doing is going over the various options: constructivism, epistemic closure, or objectivity. As Moreland pointed out, if Franke denies objectivity, then the options available to him are either constructivism or epistemic closure. Taking what he said about our inability to speak of God at face value, the combination of the idea that we cannot speak of God on the one hand and constructivism or epistemic closure on the other entail that we have no knowledge of the infinite, for in constructivism we create reality using our language and in epistemic closure we are closed off to reality outside of our language and thus our knowledge in either case depends on our ability to speak of something. Thus, in both of these cases, if we cannot speak of something, we cannot know anything about it. If we cannot speak about God, then we have no knowledge of the infinite. This follows from the positions Franke appears to hold and thus is a likely interpretation of the statement in question, for he is either coming to a conclusion that is entailed by other premises he accepts or he is saying that while we cannot speak of God, we can still know him in part. But if we can know him in part regardless of our ability to speak of Him, then we have gone back to objectivity (or direct awareness or simple seeing), and these are views which Franke denies. To determine this, we will, of course, have to read his paper, but he has yet to make it available to the public.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1160 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:07:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1160 Unfortunately I don't know how. Franke didn't pass it out and I don't know a way to get a hold of him. The only option I know of is to download it IF it is posted on the Zondervan ETS site, but I don't know if it will be.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1159 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1159 Roger, can you get ahold of this paper? I'd like to actually read Franke rather than assume he is saying and meaning what Derrida said and meant.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1158 Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:00:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1158 “I. . . find it difficult to believe that Franke holds the position that we as finite minds can know nothing of an infinite God.”
I find it difficult to believe the opposite. If Franke holds (1) that we cannot speak of God and (2) that reality is constructed by our use of language, then would not our inability to speak of God entail an inability to comprehend Him at all? It seems a bit strange to hold that we cannot speak of God but we can comprehend Him at least somewhat. But if, to revise (2), Franke is merely saying that our knowledge of reality depends on our use of language, then, once again, our inability to speak of God entails an inability to know Him at all.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/282/franke%c2%92s-self-refutedness/comment-page-1#comment-1157 Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:28:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=282#comment-1157 Tim, I, being one less likely to give Moreland the benefit of the doubt, find it difficult to believe that Franke holds the position that we as finite minds can know nothing of an infinite God. This doesn't seem to follow with the rest of Beyond Foundationalism. Having seen people talk past one another, I am more inclined to believe that this is what is happening again here.
Clearly, in their argument that the people of God become hermenuetical communities that are shaped by scripture and continuing the community through which scripture was written, they believed we were capable of knowing something of an infinite God.
Having said that, I can't speak authoritatively on what Franke or Moreland have said. I haven't read either of the papers they presented, and Beyond Foundationalism is a little cloudy in my memory now.

]]>