interesting YECist epistemological claim

rmwilliamsll · Jan 15, 2007

this thread is prompted by:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30757909#post30757909

I have questioned ministers and science professors. The ministers hold up the Bible, and I see how GOD has worked in my life. The secular scientists hold up their diplomas and their research but I see no life changing evidence that they are enlightened with all thier learning. Therefore I must conclude that what I have is real and what they have is opinion....

I stared at this paragraph for several minutes, just digesting and looking at it carefully. what an interesting epistemological claim....

First, note that the ministers testimony changes HIS life.
and that the scientists testimony is false because THEIR lives are not changed or enlightened to HIM.*

This is essentially an epistemological claim that his experience is the only reliability or justification scheme available for either type of knowledge: religious or secular. curious i would have expected coherence with and justification by the Bible in the first instance and by reality in the second.

Second, since i don't have access to his private experience of either group, i can have no reliable knowledge, neither can anyone else. For it all revolves around his experiences confirming the rightness of the knowledge. Now you might be able to extend this to other people who have the exact same experiences as he does, but wouldn't he have to somehow certify these "enlightened experiencers" to be sure that then judged ministers and scientists in exactly the same way?

Lastly, at heart this is a really odd claim for a Christian to try to make. For it puts his experience at the center of everything, determining truth, determining enlightment etc. i would really expect some reference to God, not a sinful human being. Besides who was here to do this essential task before he was born or will be here after he dies? can we only have reliable information while he is here among us?

but the big question, other than this radical individualism is why pick experience as this great rule?

notes:
* wouldn't it be better if the minister's life was changed and this enlightenment evident to him?
or
that the scientists knowledge changed his experience rather than not enlightening them?
this confusion between who does what under what conditions is inconsistent and confusing as stated.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jan 15, 2007

I have questioned ministers and science professors. The ministers hold up the Bible, and I see how GOD has worked in my life. The secular scientists hold up their diplomas and their research but I see no life changing evidence that they are enlightened with all thier learning. Therefore I must conclude that what I have is real and what they have is opinion....

Well science has certainly changed my life since I first realized that I wanted to be a scientist, which was so long ago that not even my father can remember exactly when it was.

The first time I did a really interesting experiment and got a new result, I went to my advisor who said
"you do realize that from time you got the data until you told me about it you were the only person in world who knew that, don't you?" Now I don't claim to be an especially enlightened person but that sort of exprience is at least part of why I do science.

I have spent most of my life with scientists, some of whom are very religious and some of who aren't but nearly all have shared a thirst for knowledge and a desire to advance human understanding that does affect their lives. Many also share a desire to impart their knowledge to others through teaching, which is something that I find inspiring and moving from industry to academics to do more teaching also changed my life for the better.

I agrue that scientific "enlightenment" is unique to science but religious experience that proves life changing is certainly not unique to Young Earth Creationism or even Christianity so what is its value in trying to ascertain an understanding of how the physical universe actually works? I say none.

Of course the other thing to consider is that life changing experience don't have to be "real". I am sure there are many people who have had their lives changed by hallucinations of various kinds.

F.B.

LittleNipper · Jan 15, 2007

rmwilliamsll said:
this thread is prompted by:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30757909#post30757909

I stared at this paragraph for several minutes, just digesting and looking at it carefully. what an interesting epistemological claim....

First, note that the ministers testimony changes HIS life.
and that the scientists testimony is false because THEIR lives are not changed or enlightened to HIM.*

This is essentially an epistemological claim that his experience is the only reliability or justification scheme available for either type of knowledge: religious or secular. curious i would have expected coherence with and justification by the Bible in the first instance and by reality in the second.

Second, since i don't have access to his private experience of either group, i can have no reliable knowledge, neither can anyone else. For it all revolves around his experiences confirming the rightness of the knowledge. Now you might be able to extend this to other people who have the exact same experiences as he does, but wouldn't he have to somehow certify these "enlightened experiencers" to be sure that then judged ministers and scientists in exactly the same way?

Lastly, at heart this is a really odd claim for a Christian to try to make. For it puts his experience at the center of everything, determining truth, determining enlightment etc. i would really expect some reference to God, not a sinful human being. Besides who was here to do this essential task before he was born or will be here after he dies? can we only have reliable information while he is here among us?

but the big question, other than this radical individualism is why pick experience as this great rule?

notes:
* wouldn't it be better if the minister's life was changed and this enlightenment evident to him?
or
that the scientists knowledge changed his experience rather than not enlightening them?
this confusion between who does what under what conditions is inconsistent and confusing as stated.

No, the minister's testimonies didn't change my life. My relationship with a real SAVIOR CREATOR GOD changed my life. It was the witness of such ministers (who spoke of how GOD worked in their own lives) that pointed me towards JESUS CHRIST. Those that the HOLY SPIRIT used to convict and convince me of my own shortcomings and needs.... GOD does HIS evangelizing work through those who accept HIM, but the HOLY SPIRIT also knocks at the door to one's heart. Each new soul saved then becomes HIS witness, HIS priest to others. The work is not my work. The work is GOD's work.

For the secular scientist, the study, the work, the determinations are all about THEM. If anything they (secular scientists) rest on the works of their peers and those who taught them, whereas, my study goes back to the source of everything.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jan 15, 2007

LittleNipper said:
No, the minister's testimonies didn't change my life. My relationship with a real SAVIOR CREATOR GOD changed my life. It was the witness of such ministers (who spoke of how GOD worked in their own lives) that pointed me towards JESUS CHRIST. Those that the HOLY SPIRIT used to convict and convince me of my own shortcomings and needs.... GOD does HIS evangelizing work through those who accept HIM, but the HOLY SPIRIT also knocks at the door to one's heart. Each new soul saved then becomes HIS witness, HIS priest to others. The work is not my work. The work is GOD's work.

That's great but it has nothing to do with how the universe works.

For the secular scientist, the study, the work, the determinations are all about THEM. If anything they (secular scientists) rest on the works of their peers and those who taught them.

Or maybe it's about actually trying to figure out how God's universe actually works. One thing is clear, you have no idea what science and scientists are really like. Maybe you would like to go back to the Middle Ages when all your ideas about the universe were accepted uncritically but I think I prefer the 21st century. Just the thought of dental work without novacaine is enough to keep me here.

F.B.

LittleNipper · Jan 15, 2007

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
That's great but it has nothing to do with how the universe works.

Or maybe it's about actually trying to figure out how God's universe actually works. One thing is clear, you have no idea what science and scientists are really like. Maybe you would like to go back to the Middle Ages when all your ideas about the universe were accepted uncritically but I think I prefer the 21st century. Just the thought of dental work without novacaine is enough to keep me here.

F.B.

I know what scientists are really like..... They are fallen humans exactly like everyone else. They are in need of a SAVIOR too. What the discover can be interesting, but is it PERFECTLY determined and flawlessly understood. I believe not. One can only be critical if one is willing to search for GOD and not promote the understanding of men.

RedAndy · Jan 15, 2007

LittleNipper said:
One can only be critical if one is willing to search for GOD and not promote the understanding of men.

I disagree. One can only be critical if one is willing to abandon one's preconceptions once they come under fire from cold, hard, empirical evidence. Biblical literalism is one such preconception.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 15, 2007

LittleNipper said:
No, the minister's testimonies didn't change my life. My relationship with a real SAVIOR CREATOR GOD changed my life. It was the witness of such ministers (who spoke of how GOD worked in their own lives) that pointed me towards JESUS CHRIST. Those that the HOLY SPIRIT used to convict and convince me of my own shortcomings and needs.... GOD does HIS evangelizing work through those who accept HIM, but the HOLY SPIRIT also knocks at the door to one's heart. Each new soul saved then becomes HIS witness, HIS priest to others. The work is not my work. The work is GOD's work.

For the secular scientist, the study, the work, the determinations are all about THEM. If anything they (secular scientists) rest on the works of their peers and those who taught them, whereas, my study goes back to the source of everything.

But you are applying two very different criterias for truthfulness.

In the religious sphere, you are taking your experience of the Holy Spirit to be the fundamental criteria for truthfulness. This is your assessment of your experience.

In the scientific sphere you are taking THEIR lack of experience, as you see it, although i wonder how you know they don't experience this enlightment, of the Holy Spirit to be the defining feature of their falsity. This is your assessment of their experience.

Look at it a bit oversimplified:
you are saying:
my faith is real because upon the testimony of this minister I felt the experience of the Holy Spirit, thus confirming the truthfulness of what the minister is saying.

the scientists truth is really false because i do not see them experiencing with their science what i experienced with my religion.

just because you do not see the scientists experience of enlightenment by the Spirit of Secular Science, doesn't mean it didn't happen. See the conflation that you are doing, you are making your experience the determing factor. If you were applying your religious standard to them, you would ask them if they had experienced the same thing as you did when listening to your minister. But that is not what you are doing, you are judging their experience as invalid.

flip it around.
The scientist looks at your experience, the way you are looking at his, and simply states: he does not experience the awe and mystery of the unknown when he looks at the universe. therefore he is wrong. He is comparing his experience with yours and judging yours by his standards the same way as you are judging his.

the bottom line is: why should i trust either of your experiences, and why should i make my experiences the central truthtelling mechanism like you do?

For the secular scientist, the study, the work, the determinations are all about THEM
but the whole story here is about YOUR experience, not theirs. it is both your experience of the Holy Spirit that makes it truth to you, and your lack of confirming experience of their experience that makes them false.

don't you see this essential problem?
if you really wanted to use the same religious standard of truth as you propose, ie the Holy Spirit speaks to you, you would be asking them about their experiences in this matter, not trying to assess if you can experience their experience (or lack of experience as you propose)

rmwilliamsll · Jan 15, 2007

I really don't think LN understands the radical problem he has here.

Assume his experience of the HS is an adequate judge for the truthfulness of whatever.

Now if he applied this standard to anyone else but himself he would say that they ought to line up their experiences of the HS to see if they are the same, if they are then this other person has valid knowledge as well...

but that is not what he does, what he does is subject the other person experience to his experience of it. The two items to be compared ought to be LN's experience of the HS and X's experience of the HS, but rather than this he proposes that the standard is his experience of HS against his own (LN's) assessment of whether X's experience is valid.

what a self-centered radical solipism. people can not even judge their own experiences and be asked about them, rather they must wait for him to assess their experience himself.

He is essentially telling everyone that they can not have a valid experience of the HS unless he feels that they did. he is not even willing to ask them, but rather looks and feels to see if they evidence what he is looking for.

i really never expected Christians to make such points. at least not in polite company like ours.

notes:
in: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30758115&postcount=43
LN said:

Who revealed this to you? GOD reveals me HIS creation in HIS Word.

so he does know how to ask questions about other people's experience, i wonder why he doesn't allow the same thing in the quotation in the OP:
but I see no life changing evidence that they are enlightened with all thier learning.

do you think he will ask again.
or just look and assess other people's hearts to make this crucial judgement?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jan 15, 2007

LittleNipper said:
I know what scientists are really like..... They are fallen humans exactly like everyone else. They are in need of a SAVIOR too.

Not everyone agrees with you and not all scientists are atheists and it has nothing to do with the history of the universe. Why don't you ask the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. They show that it is possible to accept Christ without swallowing the YEC nonsense.

What the discover can be interesting, but is it PERFECTLY determined and flawlessly understood.

No we don't have perfect understanding, but we do have successively better understanding as science progresses.

I believe not. One can only be critical if one is willing to search for GOD and not promote the understanding of men.

Yours is not the only way to search for God even if you think so. If everyone took your anti-science path we would still be in the dark ages.

billwald · Jan 15, 2007

How does one differentiate between "God working" and "Satan working?"

XTE · Jan 15, 2007

LittleNipper said:
I know what scientists are really like..... They are fallen humans exactly like everyone else. They are in need of a SAVIOR too. What the discover can be interesting, but is it PERFECTLY determined and flawlessly understood. I believe not. One can only be critical if one is willing to search for GOD and not promote the understanding of men.

Everyone join with him on this:

**chants** we are all the scum of the world, we are bottom-feeders, we need help, all of us, there is no hope in this Universe, you cannot help yourself, we are all prejudged, we are not worthy of life at all, we should have been burned post fall and started anew, my dog should eat better than me, my wife is a hateful, horrible "sinner" and I can't stand to know it other than knowing that I'm one of these dasturdly "sinners" myself......**end chant**

I'M AN ABSOLUTE JERK FOR CONVICTING MYSELF AND TRYING TO SHAME MYSELF OUT OF EXISTENCE! I AM A HORRIBLE PERSON FOR PRESUMING I AM A HORRIBLE PERSON! I SHOULD GET REAL!

XTE · Jan 15, 2007

billwald said:
How does one differentiate between "God working" and "Satan working?"

If God believers like it, it's "God working." If God believers hate it, it's "Satan working."

I hope this helps.

I_Love_Cheese · Jan 15, 2007

billwald said:
How does one differentiate between "God working" and "Satan working?"

If it is what you want to happen, it is god, if not, satan.

Isn't that abundantly obvious by now?

ReverendDG · Jan 16, 2007

LittleNipper said:
No, the minister's testimonies didn't change my life. My relationship with a real SAVIOR CREATOR GOD changed my life. It was the witness of such ministers (who spoke of how GOD worked in their own lives) that pointed me towards JESUS CHRIST. Those that the HOLY SPIRIT used to convict and convince me of my own shortcomings and needs.... GOD does HIS evangelizing work through those who accept HIM, but the HOLY SPIRIT also knocks at the door to one's heart. Each new soul saved then becomes HIS witness, HIS priest to others. The work is not my work. The work is GOD's work.
so basically the only criteria you place for how valid something is, is if it agrees with my views and how i feel about it
For the secular scientist, the study, the work, the determinations are all about THEM. If anything they (secular scientists) rest on the works of their peers and those who taught them, whereas, my study goes back to the source of everything.

yep since scientists don't bow down and claim its all about god then its wrong or invalid
i've come to conclution that for a lot of people its not about validity, but whether or not its attributed to the person they want it attributed to, which is god.

LittleNipper · Jan 16, 2007

RedAndy said:
I disagree. One can only be critical if one is willing to abandon one's preconceptions once they come under fire from cold, hard, empirical evidence. Biblical literalism is one such preconception.

Just exactly what preconceptions have you abandoned?

LittleNipper · Jan 16, 2007

ReverendDG said:
yep since scientists don't bow down and claim its all about god then its wrong or invalid
i've come to conclution that for a lot of people its not about validity, but whether or not its attributed to the person they want it attributed to, which is god.

Some scientists ---- not all scientists. What is valid? I've been shown only one opinion after another. If the opinion is "naturalistic in nature" then naturalistic researchers will consider it. That hardly seems ideal.

Hydra009 · Jan 16, 2007

billwald said:
How does one differentiate between "God working" and "Satan working?"

If it doesn't humor one's pre-existing beliefs, it's Satan.

Hydra009 · Jan 16, 2007

rmwilliamsll said:
this thread is prompted by:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30757909#post30757909

I stared at this paragraph for several minutes, just digesting and looking at it carefully. what an interesting epistemological claim....

It's the concept of regeneration, stripped from its theological moors and applied to education in general. (It's rare to see a crevo argument that didn't first appear in an apologetics context) Scientists have to be wrong, because they don't seem "transformed" by their education.

Now apply the same logic when one is sick and needs healing - you could go to a doctor who doesn't seem transformed or a medicine man who does. Does that work? Absurd logic, not the least of which, because as you pointed out, it puts subjective experience as the determiner of truth.

RedAndy · Jan 16, 2007

LittleNipper said:
Just exactly what preconceptions have you abandoned?

When I began studying science I realised that my own faith would not reconcile with the facts of the natural world I observed. I discovered that I could not literally interpret the scriptures of my faith while continuing to take in all that science had to offer. I did, however, continue for a time to subscribe to a more metaphorical approach to faith. The fact that my faith symbol is now "Agnostic" whereas it would previously have been different is not related to my pursuit of science, however.

LittleNipper · Jan 16, 2007

RedAndy said:
When I began studying science I realised that my own faith would not reconcile with the facts of the natural world I observed. I discovered that I could not literally interpret the scriptures of my faith while continuing to take in all that science had to offer. I did, however, continue for a time to subscribe to a more metaphorical approach to faith. The fact that my faith symbol is now "Agnostic" whereas it would previously have been different is not related to my pursuit of science, however.

Science only can offer you what is seen. GOD is invisible, so you miss the full spectrum of reality if indeed you are going to believe GOD exists at all.... Science is an imperfect tool in the hands of imperfect men who believe they know perfection when they see it. I beg to differ with such people.... They are blind to the fullness of reality.

interesting YECist epistemological claim

avid reader

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Teapot agnostic

avid reader

avid reader

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET

Contributor

Contributor

bel esprit

bel esprit

Teapot agnostic

Contributor

Similar threads