A Christian Perspective on Epistemology

[zippy2006]

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.

The problem is that you're committing category errors. You claim that Aquinas thinks belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith when that is demonstrably false. If you had actually read and understood arguments for the existence of God you would know that they are not appeals to faith. They may be unsound, but they are not appeals to faith. You're not even correctly understanding the nature and intention of the arguments in question. Until you do that it isn't clear why someone would want to enter into an actual discussion with you regarding such an argument--an undertaking which in itself is a very large task and generally requires a longer treatment.

 

[Caliban]

The problem is that you're committing category errors. You claim that Aquinas thinks belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith when that is demonstrably false. If you had actually read and understood arguments for the existence of God you would know that they are not appeals to faith. They may be unsound, but they are not appeals to faith. You're not even correctly understanding the nature and intention of the arguments in question. Until you do that it isn't clear why someone would want to enter into an actual discussion with you regarding such an argument--an undertaking which in itself is a very large task and generally requires a longer treatment.

Well you are completely wrong. Your fist mistake is to impart motives to me. This is unwise or worse on an Internet forum. Second, I was a believer for forty years and hold degrees in Religious Studies and literature. I am well read in theology--specifically of the Reformed tradition. I am trained in Van Tilian apologetics and Reformed Hermeneutics. When I saw that Aquinas appeals to faith, I know what I'm talking about. ALL religious claims recline on faith. ALL arguments I have ever heard are built on a foundation of some form of the God of the Gaps fallacy and involve special pleading. But, you are welcome to provide me with new evidence.

 

[zippy2006]

ALL religious claims recline on faith. ALL arguments I have ever heard are built on a foundation of some form of the God of the Gaps fallacy and involve special pleading.

lol

 

[zippy2006]

When I saw that Aquinas appeals to faith, I know what I'm talking about.

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

-ST Ia, Q. 2, A. 2
​

Spoiler

Recourse to the actual words of Aquinas makes it abundantly clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Caliban]

Fa

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

-ST Ia, Q. 2, A. 2
​

Spoiler

Recourse to the actual words of Aquinas makes it abundantly clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

Well practiced rhetoric; any real evidence?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

**sigh** ...R.Miller, only in a semantically twisted way can we can say that faith is "trust without proof." More specifically, to phrase it this way is to make it sound as if the typical Christian has absolutely no Epistemic Indicia in life by which to identify Christ as Lord and so choose to follow Him. In my estimation, and speaking as a Critical Realist advocating the application of Philosophical Hermeneutics to all of life and human thought, including to the varieties of skeptical/atheistic thought, this kind of skeptical evaluation is disingenuous and, if anything, might mean that you need to stop giving too much credence to the Street Epistemologists [Dogmatic-Foundationalists] or atheists of other epistemological ilk upon whom you may be over-indulging.

More accurately, we might say that Christian Faith is a positive Aesthetic response to Jesus Christ, one that emerges out of a person's whole being in the ongoing processes of living the daily existential Christian life, which includes a psychological confluence of multiple sources of influence, partially epistemological, partially metaphysical, but all dependent on one's own personal expectations that come to bear out the dynamic of one's own Hermeneutical understanding.

Sure, there's always the issue as to whether we each individually think the evidences for Christian faith are sufficient or not--and for some people, if not many, the evidences may very well seem utterly lacking--but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that sufficiency in relation to Christianity is some kind of Objectively determined level of epistemic justification out of which comes a (supposedly) resulting sense of subjective satisfaction, because it's not! This is especially the case if we move from the all-too worn and travelled Exterior epistemic issues to barely considered Interior epistemic issues that are inherent to the thought of the various biblical writers [by which I'm now referring to the additional field of Biblical Epistemology].

At this point I'm going to halt since all I'm really trying to do is impart some friendly advice to you for your benefit rather than to debate. If anything, I'd like to suggest that you reevalutate the epistemic principles and praxis by which you think you're supposed to assess and value the essence of Christianity. Remember, you're not trying to build a spacecraft by which you'll land on the face of Mars; no, you're trying to somehow reach out and encounter the Spirit of the Living God as it has been revealed through the person of Jesus Christ, however that is supposed to happen for each one of us, and this latter project is of a different kind of human experience than is, say, working at NASA or SpaceX. There may be more for you to consider than you've been told, or up until this point, than you have been willing to engage.

On the other hand, I'm not going to sugar-coat it and tell you that you won't ultimately still be disappointed with what you find in Christianity on the whole. The fact is, some of our eventual satisfaction with the Christian faith will be partially determined by what we each "wish" to find there, and if we're the kind of person that is coming to Christianity to gain health, wealth, prosperity, and/or the uber kind of life, I can only shake my head in pity.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Caliban]

**sigh** ...R.Miller, only in a semantically twisted way can we can say that faith is "trust without proof." More specifically, to phrase it this way is to make it sound as if the typical Christian has absolutely no Epistemic Indicia in life by which to identify Christ as Lord and so choose to follow Him. In my estimation, and speaking as a Critical Realist advocating the application of Philosophical Hermeneutics to all of life and human thought, including to the varieties of skeptical/atheistic thought, this kind of skeptical evaluation is disingenuous and, if anything, might mean that you need to stop giving too much credence to the Street Epistemologists [Dogmatic-Foundationalists] or atheists of other epistemological ilk upon whom you may be over-indulging.

More accurately, we might say that Christian Faith is a positive Aesthetic response to Jesus Christ, one that emerges out of a person's whole being in the ongoing processes of living the daily existential Christian life, which includes a psychological confluence of multiple sources of influence, partially epistemological, partially metaphysical, but all dependent on one's own personal expectations that come to bear out the dynamic of one's own Hermeneutical understanding.

Sure, there's always the issue as to whether we each individually think the evidences for Christian faith are sufficient or not--and for some people, if not many, the evidences may very well seem utterly lacking--but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that sufficiency in relation to Christianity is some kind of Objectively determined level of epistemic justification out of which comes a (supposedly) resulting sense of subjective satisfaction, because it's not! This is especially the case if we move from the all-too worn and travelled Exterior epistemic issues to barely considered Interior epistemic issues that are inherent to the thought of the various biblical writers [by which I'm now referring to the additional field of Biblical Epistemology].

At this point I'm going to halt since all I'm really trying to do is impart some friendly advice to you for your benefit rather than to debate. If anything, I'd like to suggest that you reevalutate the epistemic principles and praxis by which you think you're supposed to assess and value the essence of Christianity. Remember, you're not trying to build a spacecraft by which you'll land on the face of Mars; no, you're trying to somehow reach out and encounter the Spirit of the Living God as it has been revealed through the person of Jesus Christ, however that is supposed to happen for each one of us, and this latter project is of a different kind of human experience than is, say, working at NASA or SpaceX. There may be more for you to consider than you've been told, or up until this point, than you have been willing to engage.

On the other hand, I'm not going to sugar-coat it and tell you that you won't ultimately still be disappointed with what you find in Christianity on the whole. The fact is, some of our eventual satisfaction with the Christian faith will be partially determined by what we each "wish" to find there, and if we're the kind of person that is coming to Christianity to gain health, wealth, prosperity, and/or the uber kind of life, I can only shake my head in pity.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I appreciate your response. And, I agree that my definition of faith is at least partially "semantically twisted." That's to say that although I remain convinced that faith is essentially belief without evidence; I think that only applies to the final epistemological step of belief. Of course there is evidence for the Christian faith or the central claims of the Bible; just as there is evidence for other religions. I see the foundation for each argument for God to ultimately break down into a God of the Gaps argument, such as the Cosmological Argument, The Kalam, or the Moral Argument. All of these arguments require a last infusion of faith. That last epistemological step, that final piece of of missing evidence, the thing all those apologetics books are trying to solve is why I say faith faith is trust without proof. It is. That is why is faith. We all know that there is no proof for the supernatural. There is obviously no silver bullet and most sceptic don't even think there is a gun. I am not trying to be snarky in my definition of faith. I was asked to define the word according to my understanding in order to define my terms.

I agree with Matt Dillahunty who said something similar to: faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence; when they have evidence they give that. As a former Christian, that is precisely what I did in the past. I would never have defined it that way then; I might have cited Hebrews 11--"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I would have zeroed in on that word evidence but, not emphasized the matter of the unseen. It is that unseen thing, that missing piece of evidence that both defines faith and makes it a requirement. There is no need for faith if one has evidence. I used to see faith as a virtue--no longer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate your response. And, I agree that my definition of faith is at least partially "semantically twisted." That's to say that although I remain convinced that faith is essentially belief without evidence; I think that only applies to the final epistemological step of belief. Of course there is evidence for the Christian faith or the central claims of the Bible; just as there is evidence for other religions. I see the foundation for each argument for God to ultimately break down into a God of the Gaps argument, such as the Cosmological Argument, The Kalam, or the Moral Argument. All of these arguments require a last infusion of faith. That last epistemological step, that final piece of of missing evidence, the thing all those apologetics books are trying to solve is why I say faith faith is trust without proof. It is. That is why is faith. We all know that there is no proof for the supernatural. There is obviously no silver bullet and most sceptic don't even think there is a gun. I am not trying to be snarky in my definition of faith. I was asked to define the word according to my understanding in order to define my terms.

I agree with Matt Dillahunty who said something similar to: faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence; when they have evidence they give that. As a former Christian, that is precisely what I did in the past. I would never have defined it that way then; I might have cited Hebrews 11--"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I would have zeroed in on that word evidence but, not emphasized the matter of the unseen. It is that unseen thing, that missing piece of evidence that both defines faith and makes it a requirement. There is no need for faith if one has evidence. I used to see faith as a virtue--no longer.

...I figured the thinking of someone like Matt Dillahunty was behind your present view. What I'd like for you to consider is the extent to which your present view is log rolling an idea that it actually 'should' be, or that ANY of us actually 'should' be. I'm not convinced that it is ...

 

[Caliban]

...I figured the thinking of someone like Matt Dillahunty was behind your present view. What I'd like for you to consider is the extent to which your present view is log rolling an idea that it actually 'should' be, or that ANY of us actually 'should' be. I'm not convinced that it is ...

No, my ideas are my own. Citing another person is, as you know, quite a legitimate practice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, my ideas are my own. Citing another person is, as you know, quite a legitimate practice.

I wasn't really concerned by the academic act of citing some support for our own view, but I was trying to imply that Dillahunty's view, along with both your's and mine, are Subjective in nature and can only ever be Subjective in nature when it pertains to our individual evaluations about the "sufficiency" of evidence for the Christian Faith. In saying this, let me qualify that when I say "Subjective," I'm not referring to the colloquial sense of the word, but rather to the Kierkegaardian (even Hermeneutical) sense of it.

 

[Caliban]

I am not worried about Kiekegaardian Subjectivity. I am simply looking for evidence that a god exists.

 

[Tone]

there is no proof for the supernatural

How do you define supernatural...and proof? I consider the biblical accounts of the Messiah's resurrection as proof of the "supernatural" (actually, I believe it was a truly natural thing for Him to defeat death...because death is unnatural).

It is that unseen thing, that missing piece of evidence that both defines faith and makes it a requirement. There is no need for faith if one has evidence.

No, faith is the evidence of things unseen...so, basically, another word for it can be "effects".

 

[Caliban]

How do you define supernatural...and proof? I consider the biblical accounts of the Messiah's resurrection as proof of the "supernatural" (actually, I believe it was a truly natural thing for Him to defeat death...because death is unnatural).



No, faith is the evidence of things unseen...so, basically, another word for it can be "effects".

I don't define supernatural. It has a common usage.
Supernatural
Adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Noun 1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
Definition of SUPERNATURAL

the Bible is not proof of the supernatural or the resurrection. the events in the Bible are the claims you need to prove. To say the Bible proves or is even evidence for a supernatural claim is circular reasoning.
Logical Fallacies » Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

Proof
Noun 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
If you are trying to tell me that there is a maximally powerful God that created all things and is interested in how I live my life, I'm going to need some serious evidence for this extraordinary claim. It really is a huge thing to take on a persons word, let alone a two thousand year old text from euphonious authors.

 

[Tone]

some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

How long has this "scientific understanding" existed?

the Bible is not proof of the supernatural or the resurrection

Do you understand the Bible according to "scientific understanding"?

the events in the Bible are the claims you need to prove

They have proven themselves.

*I witness to this.

evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

You mean like eyewitness testimony?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not worried about Kiekegaardian Subjectivity. I am simply looking for evidence that a god exists.

Wait a minute! From your OP, you said you were wondering about epistemology and you didn't mention anything about evidence. These two issues are not the same, so which is it? I was trying to help you here, but if you're going to use a bait-and-switch tactic for just a basic inquiry, I'm not sure that you're actually wanting to 'seek help.'

 

[Caliban]

I thought evidence was implied--I guess I forgot where I am.

 

[Caliban]

How long has this "scientific understanding" existed?



Do you understand the Bible according to "scientific understanding"?



They have proven themselves.

*I witness to this.



You mean like eyewitness testimony?

There is no eyewitness testimony in the Bible and you are not a witness of the existence of a God. Sorry to inform you. But, don't believe me. Try Googling the authors of the Synoptic Gospels; or, even read the introduction to each book. The authors were pseudonymous. Everything is second hand (at least). The dates of those books matter too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought evidence was implied--I guess I forgot where I am.

And where are you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought evidence was implied--I guess I forgot where I am.

...if you don't know 'where' you are at the present moment, allow me to help you out by offering the suggestion that you're presently [epistemologically speaking] ............................... here:

...and that's kind of a terrible epistemological pit to be stuck in, isn't it?

(By the way, this video is recent, from May 28, 2019)

 

[Caliban]

...if you don't know 'where' you are at the present moment, allow me to help you out by offering the suggestion that you're presently [epistemologically speaking] ............................... here:

...and that's kind of a terrible epistemological pit to be stuck in, isn't it?

(By the way, this video is recent, from May 28, 2019)

I've seen that clip. I agree with what Matt and Don said (as far as I recall). What epistemological pit? They are consistently rational.