A Christian Perspective on Epistemology

[Tone]

Okay, I can understand that. If I had such an experience right now, I would consider that evidence of a kind. But, how would I know if I had perceived properly? Also, how could I ever trust another persons testimony?

Well,since it involves people,with personality...it starts with communication.

 

[Caliban]

What do you mean by communication--that's interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have read enough to know that I think the Van Tilian approach to epistemology, vie presuppositionalism is unsupportable (IMO). What alternatives are there?

Hello again, R. Miller. It's been a while! This time around, I'll keep my cool since this isn't a debate section.

Getting to the point, I have to say there are no applicable, systematic epistemologies that can be adopted and used to think our way to the Face of God. It just doesn't work that way; no, we're left to our Existential sources from which to make the best response to the Christian faith we can once we've become familiar with the message. And that's that. So, pick an epistemological framework or method, and go with as far as you can. The Lord, in His own way, will have to help you the rest of the way.

If I were to give you some straight laced advice, I'd adopt Philosophical Hermeneutics as your gate by which to approach the Christian faith rather than attempting to find what we might call a sheer epistemology.

That's the starting point, my friend, along with some ongoing prayer over the next decade.

 

[Caliban]

Hello again, R. Miller. It's been a while! This time around, I'll keep my cool since this isn't a debate section.

Getting to the point, I have to say there are no applicable, systematic epistemologies that can be adopted and used to think our way to the Face of God. It just doesn't work that way; no, we're left to our Existential sources from which to make the best response to the Christian faith we can once we've become familiar with the message. And that's that. So, pick an epistemological framework or method, and go with as far as you can. The Lord, in His own way, will have to help you the rest of the way.

If I were to give you some straight laced advice, I'd adopt Philosophical Hermeneutics as your gate by which to approach the Christian faith rather than attempting to find what we might call a sheer epistemology.

That's the starting point, my friend, along with some ongoing prayer over the next decade.

Thanks, I am familiar with the study of Hermenutics--Hermes and its Etymology--I've also read fairly extensively in the Protestant/Reformed tradition of theology and Hermenutics. But, not much in Philosophical Hermeneutics. I'll check that out.

 

[Tone]

What do you mean by communication--that's interesting.

A message being sent and received...impeded by the inevitable noise...yet, always there...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, I am familiar with the study of Hermenutics--Hermes and its Etymology--I've also read fairly extensively in the Protestant/Reformed tradition of theology and Hermenutics. But, not much in Philosophical Hermeneutics. I'll check that out.

Just to give you a small jump start, the following by Jens Zimmerman is what I am referring to. It may seemingly share some initial epistemic structures with the Reformed tradition and their own foray into biblical hermeneutics, but it is more or less separate and generally relies upon the epistemic position of Critical Realism (as opposed to Direct Realism, Representational Realism, Non-Realism or Idealism).

9 Facts About [Philosophical] Hermenuetics - Jens Zimmerman

 

[Tone]

The fact that you are here asking questions means you have received the message,yet, the noise has muddled it up a bit:

Romans 10
"16But not all of them welcomed the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did: 'Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.'"

 

[Caliban]

Just to give you a small jump start, the following by Jens Zimmerman is what I am referring to. It may seemingly share some initial epistemic structures with the Reformed tradition and their own foray into biblical hermeneutics, but it is more or less separate and generally relies upon the epistemic position of Critical Realism (as opposed to Direct Realism, Representational Realism, Non-Realism or Idealism).

9 Facts About [Philosophical] Hermenuetics - Jens Zimmerman

I'll check him out--Looks like he has a book titled, Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction.

 

[Tone]

Communication (from Latin communicare, meaning "to share")[1] is the act of conveying meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs, symbols, and semiotic rules.

The main steps inherent to all communication are:[2]

1. The formation of communicative motivation or reason.
2. Message composition (further internal or technical elaboration on what exactly to express).
3. Message encoding (for example, into digital data, written text, speech, pictures, gestures and so on).
4. Transmission of the encoded message as a sequence of signals using a specific channel or medium.
5. Noise sources such as natural forces and in some cases human activity (both intentional and accidental) begin influencing the quality of signals propagating from the sender to one or more receivers.
6. Reception of signals and reassembling of the encoded message from a sequence of received signals.
7. Decoding of the reassembled encoded message.
8. Interpretation and making sense of the presumed original message.

Communication - Wikipedia

 

[Caliban]

com·mu·ni·ca·tion

the imparting or exchanging of information or news.
"at the moment I am in communication with London"
synonyms: transmission, imparting, conveying, reporting, presenting, passing on, handing on, relay, conveyance, divulgence, divulgation, disclosure;
spreading, dissemination, promulgation, broadcasting, circulation, circulating
"meetings are used for the communication of research result.

I know what communication means. What I meant was, how is it related to the topic you mentioned?

 

[Tone]

What alternatives are there?

My belief that I am in communication with the Creator is justified on the personal level, which I believe to be the ultimate point of contact. It seems to me that science and philosophy fragment this most basic aspect of humankind...we should be holistic...not fragmented.

*When He meets with us...it is on every level of our existence...and, most importantly...at the highest level of the spiritual.

 

[Caliban]

My belief that I am in communication with the Creator is justified on the personal level, which I believe to be the ultimate point of contact. It seems to me that science and philosophy fragment this most basic aspect of humankind...we should be holistic...not fragmented.

I think you are right about the fragmentation between faith and science. That gets to the heart of my original post in this thread--they seem radically disparate. I do not think you can harmonize them. Both atheists and theist attempt to corral them into agreement. I don't think that is ultimately possible. The scientific method seeks evidentiary support for claims--faith relies of religious texts or experience which cannot be validated. Also, science is merely concerned with the material world which it has access to. Faith is concerned with an idea of the indemonstrable. How can you provide evidence for something outside of nature (supernatural)?

 

[Tone]

The scientific method seeks evidentiary support for claims--faith relies of religious texts or experience which cannot be validated. Also, science is merely concerned with the material world which it has access to. Faith is concerned with an idea of the indemonstrable. How can you provide evidence for something outside of nature (supernatural)?

I think the ideal of "science" is what is referred to as faith:

Hebrews 11
"1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 

[Tone]

science is merely concerned with the material world

But, as you say, science is about a constant division of the material world, which is why it can never be holistic. Through faith, we understand that the material world is not natural...it has been subject to "corruption"...decay...entropy. Therefore, a preoccupation with it will not only narrow man's understanding more and more, but will lead to complete fragmentation,leaving no room for the personality of man.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you are right about the fragmentation between faith and science. That gets to the heart of my original post in this thread--they seem radically disparate. I do not think you can harmonize them. Both atheists and theist attempt to corral them into agreement. I don't think that is ultimately possible. The scientific method seeks evidentiary support for claims--faith relies of religious texts or experience which cannot be validated. Also, science is merely concerned with the material world which it has access to. Faith is concerned with an idea of the indemonstrable. How can you provide evidence for something outside of nature (supernatural)?

As a subscriber to Methodological Naturalism rather than Philosophical Naturalism, I generally agree that science and religious belief are separate. However, I think your definition of 'faith' as being an idea of the indemonstrable is probably a little overstated. I'm more inclined to think that the meaning of the term "demonstrable," in this case, will depend upon our ongoing Hermeneutical applications through the Hermeneutical Circle whereby we each individually come to surmise as to which aspects of the bible, or Christianity generally conceived, can be tested and which of those can't. And this is where Philosophical Hermeneutics comes in, as a calibrator of our interpretive praxis.

Of course, even then, we can often face the existential problem of Lessing's Ditch, something that Kierkegaard (and indirectly, Pascal) says we run up against as our subjective experiences bring about human reactions to past historical evidences, thus making it very difficult to relate to God via an intermediate relation with what are essentially 'past' comments about Jesus/God. [e.g. How can I have a relationship with a sentence that says, "Jesus loves you"!] So, at some point, if we want to enter into an active state of "being" a Christian ... we'll have to take a leap over that ugly Ditch, or as Pascal advised, we'll have to place our bets over and above the shouts of objective demands that plague our thoughts.

Anyway, in short, this is partly why the epistemic route for Christian faith is bifurcated from that which runs in and through various scientific methods. Both routes are reaching for different goals, not the same goals.

 

[Sanoy]

The goal of proposing an epistemological grounding is to provide a grounding that can acquire the robust intellectual faculties that we perceive we have. A teleological explanation is the only explanation I know of that can acquire such a robust set of intellectual faculties. It couldn't be a weak teleological explanation either, because the robustness of our intellectual faculties would be directly related to the degree of teleology involved. As far as I can see we are left penniless in purchasing truth without a strong teleological explanation for our intellectual faculties.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course it is-- [a ridiculous parody of Aquinas's position] it's a brief forum with a brief question. I'm not writing my dissertation.

At least you know you have parodied Aquinas. Luther parodied him too, to Luther's loss.

I offered my post in good will. This isn't an are for debate so I leave it at that.

Maybe you will some day write a dissertation on epistemology and link it here.

 

[zippy2006]

I am simply asking for a reason why Christians believe they have knowledge which many do not find compelling and how they view the acquiring of that knowledge--does it differ in any significant way from modern Epistemological methods?

Radagast's first post is on point. There is nothing particularly strange about Christian epistemology.

You seem to be asking about the epistemic status of propositions believed on the basis of faith, no? Whether faith lies outside classical epistemology? In short I would say that faith is a kind of argument from authority, and divine faith is an argument from divine authority. Radagast also touched on this in his first post.

Is faith knowledge? There are different ways of answering this and related questions: Is epistemology the domain of natural reason? Is faith rational? Is faith demonstrable? etc.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I have read enough to know that I think the Van Tilian approach to epistemology, vie presuppositionalism is unsupportable (IMO). What alternatives are there?

Plantinga has a Reformed Epistemology that he describes in his series: Warrant the Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warranted Christian Belief.

https://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Function-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195078640

 

[Caliban]

Radagast's first post is on point. There is nothing particularly strange about Christian epistemology.

You seem to be asking about the epistemic status of propositions believed on the basis of faith, no? Whether faith lies outside classical epistemology? In short I would say that faith is a kind of argument from authority, and divine faith is an argument from divine authority. Radagast also touched on this in his first post.

Is faith knowledge? There are different ways of answering this and related questions: Is epistemology the domain of natural reason? Is faith rational? Is faith demonstrable? etc.

I think the idea central to theistic belief is that there are other ways of knowing. I see this as a departure from epistemology. Every theistic argument I have ever encountered includes some form of a 'god of the gaps' fallacy or merely appeals to faith. Even the most thoughtful are guilty of this; Plantings is no exception. I just don't see how a person gets to belief without some sort of presupposition or circularity. Do you think faith IS knowledge? What is faith?