Jim,

David Bryon alreadt responded to someof what you stated in your last post,
and some of what he had to say I repeat below. I hope you don't feel like
you are being ganged up on. :) However, I am thoroughly confused as to some
of your arguments at this point, especially in relation to what I have
argued in previous posts.

Jim quoted: "And the times of this ignorance God has winked at; but now
commandsall men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:30
See Acts 17:22-34, esp 30.
The point of the above is that there are a class of people who don't
know God.

[Michael Sudduth] First, the sense and scope of ignorance in this passage
is not clear. You assume that it entails a lack of any propositional
knowledge of God. But this must be argued. Secondly, suppose that it does
teach that these philosophers lacked all propositional knowledge of God. I
have agreed that some people do not have propositional knowledge of God. Is
this point supposed to refute my view, as you suggest below? I think not.
Lastly, since the passage is consistent with some (unregenerate) people
having some knowledge of God, that fact would still need explaining.

[Jim]
Not a case of self-deception, not cases of suppression.
Cases of ignorance - not having enough info on the matter.

[Michael Sudduth] "Enough" information? Or no information at all? You are
hedging. Moreover, the lack of knowledge is consistent with self-deception
or suppression, as these may actually be an explanation of why the
individuals in question were ignorant. It also provides an explanation of
what it could mean to be ignorant - something you don't even attempt to
explain.

[Jim]
Paul in
Acts 17 teaches the Stoic and Epicureans (who were not theists) some
basic theism.

[Michael Sudduth] I think he taught them considerably more than that. And
the theism he affirmed to them was based on passages from Cleanthes and
Aratus - pagans. Moreover, some Greek philosophers were theists, including
some Stoic philosophers. So your argument would not extent to such people.
Also, theism consists of various propositions. Paul's teaching some of them
to these philosophers is logically consistent with their already knowing
others. Again, your deductions do not follow from the text.

[Jim]
Why? Did they forget it? Did they suppress the Truth?

[Michael Sudduth] The passage would be consistent with this.

[Jim]
No, they were ignorant

[Michael Sudduth] What does this mean? They did not know any true theistic
proposition? They lacked knowledge of some theistic propositions, perhaps
essential to a right relationship with God? What is the sense of
"ignorance" here? What is its scope? Moreover, it might very well be a
consequence of their suppressing the truth that they were in some sense
ignorant. You are assuming a false dichotomy.

[Jim]
- as a matter of fact they did the best with
what they had (hats off to Steve P for seeing this in his discussions
with Vern). God 'winked' at their ignorance. Pual had to teach them
theism.

[Michael Sudduth] Even if this is true, it would not follow that the SD
produces no knowledge of God in any unregenerate people. That is a fallacy.
You cannot argue from <Paul had to teach "them" theism> to the conclusion
<no unregenerate people have (non-taught) theistic knowledge>.

[Jim]
Now, if the SD is universal, then obviously these people had
an SD.
[Michael Sudduth] Right.

[Jim]
But they needed to be taught theism. The SD did not give up
the info.

[Michael Sudduth] Right, as long as you realize that one can be taught
some theistic truth while other theistic truth may be already known. Theism
is not one simple proposition, and we are talking about propositional
knowledge of God.

[Jim]
The 'cognitive malfunction/sin' theory is irrelevant here:
the problem was a lack of info.

[Michael Sudduth] What? Lack of information and cognitive malfunction are
not necessarily *separate* issues, as you assume. The former is an
explanation of the latter. You have not even offered any explanation for
why these individuals were ignorant, though you seem to be suggesting that
it is because they simply did not have an SD. If this is what you are
suggesting, then you have committed a logical fallacy, as an absence of
theistic belief does not entail no SD (as the observation is consistent
with a malfunctioning SD). If you agree that there is an SD, then what you
say here is equally wrong-headed, since in that case you have reason for
supposing that the lack of information is due to a malfunctioning cognitive
faculty of some sort, such as the SD.

[Jim]
1. The thesis of Sudduth and Byron suffers:
a. Rom 1:18-32 is not universal. It describes those who KNOW
the Truth about God and suppress it. It does not describe ignorance
(Acts 17). "Ungodliness of men who " do such-and-such. The term 'men'
is Qualified by the 'who' do such-and such - who hold the Truth, know
the Truth, and suppress it. Does everyone do this? No.

[Michael Sudduth] The conclusion does not follow, but even if it did your
claim would be inapplicable to me as I do not maintain that everyone has
propositional knowledge of God. I have said this many, many times. So my
thesis does not suffer on the basis of this point. Byron has sufficiently
made the other point.

[Jim]
See Acts 17 -
there are those who do the best with what they got - but if all they
got was the deliverances of the SD, then they didn't get enough.

[Sudduth]
Whether they "got" any of the deliverances of the SD depends on the scope
of the "ignorance" clause. And if that the scope is very broad, suppose it
excludes any knowledge of God, it would only follow that these particular
individuals lacked knowledge of God. That would not be inconsistent with my
position. But I don't believe that you have demonstrated or even made
probable that these philosophers lacked all propositional knowledge of God.

[Jim]
More
info is needed. God 'winked' at their ignorance. They needed to be
taught theism (Calvin insists this is something we don't need to be
taught -see Bk 1 ch3 - Calvin at his weakest).

[Sudduth]
Again, this all depends on what the scope of ignorance is. "Times of
ignorance" can be taken in various ways, as can "ignorance" itself.
There'sa lot more work to do here than you have done.

[Jim]
The problem with the SD
is not cognitive malfunction (this is a problem, perhaps, for those in
Rom 1:18-20 condition), but a lack of information. I renew my inquiry
to all: what are the deliverances of the SD?

[Sudduth]
Well, for these men the SD *may* not have delivered anything. But just
because it did not give them theistic knowledge, it does not follow that it
does not give others theistic knowledge, nor does it follow that these men
who were ignorant did not have an SD. I've been over this several times now
Jim. Your argument is fallacious. And I have addressed the positive cases
where people *do* have theistic beliefs of various sorts - relevantly
disanalogous to the cases you cite from Acts. And I have offered reasons
for supposing that in those cases there is something like an SD that
produces theistic belief. I suggest you reread my earlier posts. I am under
the impression that you have not understood them.

[Jim]
Anyway, theism has now
been shown to be not properly basic in the SD fashion - it needs to be
taught.

[Sudduth]
Sorry to tell you Jim, but this is another logical fallacy - similar to the
ones you committed earlier. The text you cited at best supports only the
limited conclusion that "some people need to be taught theism" not that
"everyone needs to be taught theism." Moreover, what do you intend by the
scope of "theism"? A true theistic belief is not full blown theism, and I
have been talking about the former. The whole argument here needs to be
developed with greater clarity and caution. <Paul taught them theism> is
logically consistent with <They had some theistic knowledge>, just because
theism is a set of propositions.

[Jim]
b. The underlying motivation for the SD/cognitive malfunction thesis
was to account for God's holding people accountable (Erik). But if the
thesis cannot be shown to be universal, what can we do for this
motivation?

[Sudduth]
Which thesis? That everyone has a knowledge of God? Or that everyone has an
SD? You seem to be conflating the universal possession of a particular
cognitive mechanism (i.e., the SD) with the universal production and
possession of particular beliefs (that would be the mechanism's outputs if
it were functioning properly). And I have already argued that we have
reason to suppose that there is an SD even in the absence of true theistic
beliefs because this provides a good, perhaps the best, explanation for why
people hold false religious beliefs. You have not addressed this argument,
except to say that I was relying on Christian presuppositions. But since
you have done the same, to object on that basis is simply a double
standard.


[Jim]
Funny how reformed epistemologists forget reformed
theology. In another letter to others, I mentioned all the people
killed, or who have died, before they see the light of day. God
certainly holds these people accountable. How? Did they suppress the
Truth in unrighteousness? Did they deceive themselves? No. Romans 5
teaches that God holds all men accountable for Adam's sin thru the very
reformed doctrine of imputation.

[Sudduth]
This may very well be true, but entirely irrelevant as some of us are also
concerned with accountability for actual sins, not merely imputed sins.
Secondly, the accountability argument is a sufficient condition for the SD
doctrine, but it is not a necessary one. Hence, your argument would here
would not refute the SD doctrine even if what you say is correct.


[Jim]
[Remember, Rom 1:18-20 does not
express a universal condition (another interpretation describes it as
being chronological - I won't get into it here).

[Sudduth]
Either way, my position is not refuted by the passage in question.


[Jim]
Acts 17 describes
those who were ignorant, and did their best, yet God 'winked' at their
ignorance.

[Sudduth]
What is the scope of this ignorance (in terms of what they did not know)?
And how is applicable to everyone? If you say it isn't, then you admit that
your position is not inconsistent with mine.

[Jim]
God holds everyone accountable
well, all this just to show the Universality of God's Judgement rests
not on a persons response to the deliverances of the SD - rather, it is
based on imputation of Adam's guilt.

[Sudduth]
You are overlooking the distinction between imputed guilt and actual guilt.
And even if this argument went through as you hope, it would only negate
one particular argument for the presence of an SD. Your work has only
begun.

[Jim]
So what about the SD? What does it deliver? The Scriptures seem to
teach that it doesn't deliver enough to even form theism (remember
those in Acts 17).

[Sudduth]
For some people, at best. Again, you are committing a fallacy by
universalizing. And if you are not universalizing,then your point is not
inconsistent with mine. So either you are guilty of a logical fallacy or
misunderstanding my argument.

[Jim]
The problem with the SD is not cognitive
malfunction - the problem is the lack of info.
Is the SD knowledge or ignorance?

[Sudduth]
Bingo! Here you prove what I suggested earlier, namely that you are
conflating the existence of a mechanism with its outputs. Your entire
argument rests on this confusion.

[Jim]
Theism is something that must be taught - is it properly basic?

[Sudduth]
Well, in addition to my earlier point about this not entailing that
theistic belief is produced by an SD for some people, even if you are
correct that theistic belief must be taught, it would not follow that it is
not properly basic. Many beliefs accepted on testimony are properly basic,
especially for young children. Do not confuse proper basicality with
theistic belief produced by the SD. I have already explained this
distinction in earlier post.

[Jim]
I for one am glad for the above : I can't tell you how problematic it
is for me to talk with atheists, and missionaries from the Communist
bloc who tell me that some people have no conception concerning a deity
at all - they even need to be taught what a 'deity' is. What do I tell
them? Oh, Those people are suppressing the Truth! They are deceiving
themselves - they know God - don't let them fool you!! Seems weird to
me.

[Sudduth] I agree that it may seem wierd to you, but it doesn't follow that
it isn't true. Moreover, and I hope I will not have to say this again, but
I do not affirm that everyone has theistic knowledge.

[Jim]
Thankfully that's not the case. There is genuine ignorance out
there.

[Sudduth]
For *some* people, and with respect to *some* propositions. Yes. And this
all that the cited passage proves in the absence of further argument.

[Jim]
Theism is not properly basic - it needs to be taught and
accepted.

[Sudduth]
In the case of *some* people and with respect to *some* propositions.

[Jim]
Does God still hold genuinely ignorant peole accountable?
Yes - but not for their lack of info (see Acts 17 again), but for the
universal imputation of Adam's guilt.

[Sudduth] True.

[Jim]
Reformed epistemology must do better by the Scriptures (and, yes
Reformed Theology), this letter even should strike a chord with the Van
Tilians who base their apologetic on the notion that everyone knows
God. Well not everyone does. So, let's start afresh shall we?

[Sudduth] Well, I do not base my view on the thesis that everyone knows
God. I said I was open to that possibility, but several issues would have
to be dealt with before I took on that view for myself. So please
distinguish my view from that of Byron's and other Van Tilians, even though
I am sympathetic to their position. Nonetheless, it is not my position., at
the moment.

[Jim]
What does the SD deliver? Is it knowledge or not?

[Sudduth]
I have answered this question with great specificity. I have denied that
everyone has knowledge of God. I have affirmed that some people have
theistic knowledge. I have provided an explanation of both these points. In
your recent post you object to my view because of passages of Scripture
that apparently teach that "some people do not know God." Now either you
have misunderstood my position and think that I deny this apparent
entailment of Scriptire OR you have correctly understood my position and
think that these passages further entail that no (unregenerate) person has
any theistic knowledge. But this latter move is simply an elementary
logical fallacy. So either you have reasoned validly from Scripture and
misunderstood my position OR you have have reasoned invalidly and correctly
understood my position. This is a dilemma from which I would like you to
extricate yourself. :)

Moreover, in support of the Van Tilian view (which is not at present my
view) you must show that the cited passages deny knowledge in the sense and
with the scope as affirmed by the presuppositonalist. You must also show
that the cited passages rule out the psychological phenomenon of
self-deception. In my estimate, you have not done any of this. Hence, you
have not refuted the position of Bryon, Welty, or Choi, much less mine.

Lastly, you objected to my theistic epistemology in several posts because I
was employing a Christian or theistic framework. Haven't you done the same?
I am quite baffled, not only by your arguments, but also by your strategy
of dialogue which strikes me as guilty of a fundamenal double standard.
This is unacceptable. Moreover, I did offer a way to support my
epistemological thesis from independent premises, premises that do not
psychologically or epistemically presuppose theism. I have suggested ways
of supporting my theistic "framework." In your case, though, it is not
clear at all, how you will reply to the very objection you made against me.
I have a reply and have provided it. I'm not sure what yours can or will
be.

Best wishes,
Michael