A Christian Perspective on Epistemology

[Caliban]

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

I never heard of a uniquely Reformed epistemology. I looks like his propositions fall under the umbrella of the Ontological Argument. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[zippy2006]

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?

First, try not to conflate theism with Christianity (and faith). Various theistic traditions have forms of natural theology that do not include the notions of revelation and faith. Theism is much broader than Christianity.

What is faith? I will tell you what I think it is, but you must also tell me what you think it is if I am to understand where you are coming from. I would say that (divine) faith is belief based on God's word (or revelation). Suppose I am living in Rome in 1453 and God reveals to me that the Ottomans have taken Constantinople. I don't believe this because I have seen it, I believe it because I have accepted and trusted the word of another, namely God. A few weeks later a messenger arrives from the Eastern Empire and relays the information that Constantinople has fallen. Now I have two reasons to believe: divine faith and natural faith: the word of God and the word of man. Suppose I travel to the Hagia Sophia in 1454 and see for myself that the Ottomans occupy Constantinople. Now I have three reasons. The third reason is not faith-based.

What do you think faith is? And what are some examples of faith-based propositions?

I see that you were upbraided for misrepresenting Thomas Aquinas earlier in the thread. In ST IIae IIae, Q. 2, A. 1 he addresses the nature of the act of faith. Perhaps Aquinas would say that faith is a kind of knowledge, but he certainly distinguishes it from the sort of knowledge we gain by first-hand sight.

 

[Caliban]

First, try not to conflate theism with Christianity (and faith). Various theistic traditions have forms of natural theology that do not include the notions of revelation and faith. Theism is much broader than Christianity.

What is faith? I will tell you what I think it is, but you must also tell me what you think it is if I am to understand where you are coming from. I would say that (divine) faith is belief based on God's word (or revelation). Suppose I am living in Rome in 1453 and God reveals to me that the Ottomans have taken Constantinople. I don't believe this because I have seen it, I believe it because I have accepted and trusted the word of another, namely God. A few weeks later a messenger arrives from the Eastern Empire and relays the information that Constantinople has fallen. Now I have two reasons to believe: divine faith and natural faith: the word of God and the word of man. Suppose I travel to the Hagia Sophia in 1454 and see for myself that the Ottomans occupy Constantinople. Now I have three reasons. The third reason is not faith-based.

What do you think faith is? And what are some examples of faith-based propositions?

I see that you were upbraided for misrepresenting Thomas Aquinas earlier in the thread. In ST IIae IIae, Q. 2, A. 1 he addresses the nature of the act of faith. Perhaps Aquinas would say that faith is a kind of knowledge, but he certainly distinguishes it from the sort of knowledge we gain by first-hand sight.

I would say faith is trust without proof.
I do not consider faith similar or analogous to the eyewitness report. If discussing faith as evidence that a god exists, I cannot point to a god for evidence. That would be circular reasoning. Your analogy reports evidence from a god. How would one determine it was a god who told him that Constantinople fell?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I never heard of a uniquely Reformed epistemology. I looks like his propositions fall under the umbrella of the Ontological Argument. Is that a fair assessment?

I don't recall him talking about the ontological argument in the 3 books I mentioned. Those books deal more with warranted true belief and his version of Reformed Epistemology. He does discuss ontological arguments elsewhere; I think he is specifically noted for coming up with a modal ontological argument - I think it was in "The Nature of Necessity."

 

[Caliban]

I don't recall him talking about the ontological argument in the 3 books I mentioned. Those books deal more with warranted true belief and his version of Reformed Epistemology. He does discuss ontological arguments elsewhere; I think he is specifically noted for coming up with a modal ontological argument - I think it was in "The Nature of Necessity."

I haven't read his books, I'm just scanning a brief synopsis of his position on warranted belief. It looks like he claims that belief in a god is warranted since the belief in other minds is warranted. But, a problem is that we have direct physical evidence for the natural processes of the brain; something we do not have for a god. The analogy breaks down for me here. Maybe he addresses this issue.

 

[zippy2006]

I would say faith is trust without proof.

Why would you trust if you had proof?

I do not consider faith similar or analogous to the eyewitness report.

Belief on the basis of another is trust without proof. It fits your own definition.

If discussing faith as evidence that a god exists, I cannot point to a god for evidence. That would be circular reasoning. Your analogy reports evidence from a god. How would one determine it was a god who told him that Constantinople fell?

Catholic theologians are clear that belief in the existence of God is not ultimately faith-based. Such belief is properly considered a preamble of faith and can be known by natural reason. This was definitively stated at the first Vatican Council. The idea that belief in the existence of God is based on circular reasoning is a misrepresentation of traditional theology.

That said, in my Constantinople example you can see how a single proposition can have multiple reasons for belief. The same applies to the existence of God. For example, a child may initially believe in God because of natural faith in their parent's word, and then may later have direct experiences that verify their belief. In this way natural faith can aid in belief in the existence of God, but divine faith does not operate in the same way with respect to this proposition, precisely because the existence of the guarantor is at stake.

 

[Caliban]

Why would you trust if you had proof?



Belief on the basis of another is trust without proof. It fits your own definition.



Catholic theologians are clear that belief in the existence of God is not ultimately faith-based. Such belief is properly considered a preamble of faith and can be known by natural reason. This was definitively stated at the first Vatican Council. The idea that belief in the existence of God is based on circular reasoning is a misrepresentation of traditional theology.

That said, in my Constantinople example you can see how a single proposition can have multiple reasons for belief. The same applies to the existence of God. For example, a child may initially believe in God because of natural faith in their parent's word, and then may later have direct experiences that verify their belief. In this way natural faith can aid in belief in the existence of God, but divine faith does not operate in the same way with respect to this proposition, precisely because the existence of the guarantor is at stake.

How is belief in the existence of God not ultimately faith-based? I would really like to know.

 

[zippy2006]

How is belief in the existence of God not ultimately faith-based? I would really like to know.

There are plenty of books written on proofs for the existence of God. Two recent ones are Edward Feser's and Robert Spitzer's.

 

[Tone]

How is belief in the existence of God not ultimately faith-based? I would really like to know.

How is the belief in the existence of anything and everything not ultimately faith-based?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I haven't read his books, I'm just scanning a brief synopsis of his position on warranted belief.

I recommend reading them so you can hear his positions articulated from himself, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

It looks like he claims that belief in a god is warranted since the belief in other minds is warranted. But, a problem is that we have direct physical evidence for the natural processes of the brain; something we do not have for a god. The analogy breaks down for me here. Maybe he addresses this issue.

The problem of other minds is a notorious problem in philosophy that I'm not so sure your two or three sentences here adequately address.

Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2019 Edition)
Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Caliban]

I recommend reading them so you can hear his positions articulated from himself, even if you disagree with his conclusions.



The problem of other minds is a notorious problem in philosophy that I'm not so sure your two or three sentences here adequately address.

Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2019 Edition)
Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So that's all? No real evidence? Just go read a book? Everyone here does that.

 

[Caliban]

How is the belief in the existence of anything and everything not ultimately faith-based?

Simple, you can see it.

 

[Tone]

Simple, you can see it.

You have to believe you are conscious and that your eyes aren't playing tricks on you.

 

[Caliban]

You have to believe you are conscious and that your eyes aren't playing tricks on you.

That's absurd. I can't trust my eyes so, god is likely?

 

[Tone]

That's absurd. I can't trust my eyes so, god is likely?

You trust that you are not dreaming right now?

 

[Caliban]

You trust that you are not dreaming right now?

Your line of questioning is ridiculous. I'm not playing your little rehearsed Sye Bruggencate misadventure.

 

[Tone]

Your line of questioning is ridiculous. I'm not playing your little rehearsed Sye Bruggencate misadventure.

Alright.

*I'll have to Google "Sye...".

 

[Yekcidmij]

So that's all? No real evidence? Just go read a book? Everyone here does that.

Not even sure what you're talking about. Evidence for what? It was a simple book recommendation on Reformed Epistemology. I didn't realize you would take personal offense to it. Maybe try lightening up a little? Also, I never claimed a book recommendation is "evidence" for anything, whatever you mean by that in the context of book recommendations. It's just a recommendation if you were interested in the subject, which apparently you really aren't.

 

[Caliban]

Not even sure what you're talking about. Evidence for what? It was a simple book recommendation on Reformed Epistemology. I didn't realize you would take personal offense to it. Maybe try lightening up a little? Also, I never claimed a book recommendation is "evidence" for anything, whatever you mean by that in the context of book recommendations. It's just a recommendation if you were interested in the subject, which apparently you really aren't.

My frustration comes from every time I have a conversation about how a person could know a god exists or how any claim abut a god could be supported, I am met with either a dismissal or someone says go read a book. Iv'e read. It's what I do for a living. I'm not taking personal offense, and it isn't anything you personally said that sparked my response; it is the overall casual disposition of people on this forum who think they don't have to provide any evidence for the outlandish claim that there is a god. It's frustrating for a person asking honest questions.

 

[Yekcidmij]

My frustration comes from every time I have a conversation about how a person could know a god exists or how any claim abut a god could be supported, I am met with either a dismissal or someone says go read a book. Iv'e read. It's what I do for a living.

Then I'm happy I was able to recommend a few books you haven't read yet.

I'm not taking personal offense, and it isn't anything you personally said that sparked my response; it is the overall casual disposition of people on this forum who think they don't have to provide any evidence for the outlandish claim that there is a god. It's frustrating for a person asking honest questions.

Ok no worries. His positions on epistemology aren't without controversy, objections, counter-arguments, and counter-counter arguments (nobody's are). They're worth a read if you have the time. But to reiterate my response to the OP, there are alternatives to the Van Til/Bahnsen/Frame/Clark/Nash positions on epistemology and Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology is one of those alternatives. I think William Alston and Nicholas Wolterstorff offer a couple of views on Reformed Epistemology similar to Plantinga's, but I haven't read them in particular.