A Christian Perspective on Epistemology

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Are you going to assume that without question? Sure, he's a smart, rational guy, but his being rational doesn't mean that his responses and lectures ALWAYS result in correct answers. At best, his rational approach simply tells us 'why' he, himself, admits to having difficulty in believing, and as is 'evident' in the video, his final conclusions aren't derived merely from epistemological considerations but from existentially aesthetic choices and feelings, much of which ultimately lands upon the usual gripes about God that exude from our individual reactions to the Problem of Evil.

I'm not knocking him for 'feeling' this, like an old broken Metallica record that keeps repeating, "the God that Failed," over and over and over again. To him, the fact of evil and pain indicates that No God Exists. But let's be honest on both sides here: I believe ultimately due to my Aesthetic Argument and Existentially inclined approach to Christianity, and Matt, on the other hand, disbelieves for a negative response to the same kinds of concepts.

 

[Caliban]

Are you going to assume that without question? Sure, he's a smart, rational guy, but his being rational doesn't mean that his responses and lectures ALWAYS result in correct answers. At best, his rational approach simply tells us 'why' he, himself, admits to having difficulty in believing, and as is 'evident' in the video, his final conclusions aren't derived merely from epistemological considerations but from existentially aesthetic choices and feelings, much of which ultimately lands upon the usual gripes about God that exude from our individual reactions to the Problem of Evil.

I'm not knocking him for 'feeling' this, like an old broken Metallica record that keeps repeating, "the God that Failed," over and over and over again. To him, the fact of evil and pain indicates that No God Exists. But let's be honest on both sides here: I believe ultimately due to my Aesthetic Argument and Existentially inclined approach to Christianity, and Matt, on the other hand, disbelieves for a negative response to the same kinds of concepts.

I re-watched it. I think you missed the point by a few miles. How about some evidence for your claim that he disbelieved for "existentially aesthetic choices and feelings." Because he claims exactly the opposite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I re-watched it. I think you missed the point by a few miles. How about some evidence for your claim that he disbelieved for "existentially aesthetic choices and feelings." Because he claims exactly the opposite.

Just look at the question he jumps to at time marker 4:34, where he asks, "What kind of God..........?" When he asks this, he is moving OUT of Epistemology and into Axiology, and maybe a bit of Metaphysics.

Of course, it kind of goes without saying that in this video alone, citation of a comprehensive epistemic framework or epistemological approach isn't referenced, so on my part, I'm left with the questions that, as a philosopher, I've always had in skeptical fashion and am nowhere convinced that anyone, including William Lane Craig OR Matt Dillahunty, has any final word on handing to us 'correct' epistemology................as if anyone really could!

So, I'm not attempting to berate you here, R.Miller, but I am trying to be helpful in pointing this out so that you might have some additional things to ponder as you work through epistemological issues in relation to the Bible and thereby the issue(s) of the nature of evidence, among other things.

 

[Caliban]

I see zero problem with Matt's comments that a truly beneficent god would castigate or punish someone for non-belief given a lack of credible evidence (Let's non have any of that 'written on our hearts stuff"). This a a serious point that points to the weakness on the concept of the biblical God. You are correct in that he is not making a epistemological argument at min. 4:34--did he claim he was?

I'm not sure I understand your point. What did you intend this video to convey to me?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see zero problem with Matt's comments that a truly beneficent god would castigate or punish someone for non-belief given a lack of credible evidence (Let's non have any of that 'written on our hearts stuff"). This a a serious point that points to the weakness on the concept of the biblical God. You are correct in that he is not making a epistemological argument at min. 4:34--did he claim he was?

No, he didn't claim he was, but he does segue to it while chatting on the phone about the topic of 'evidence' with a caller.

I'm not sure I understand your point. What did you intend this video to convey to me?

Simply, that perhaps you rely too much on Dillahunty's epistemological evaluations as they may pertain to whatever level of "sufficiency of evidence" you think/feel should qualify the bible as a form of revelation from God.

My question to you is: do you always bite the hand that tries to feed you? I mean, I'm not very much appreciating your earlier comment about how you "forgot where you were," as if all Christians can just be stereotyped in their epistemic outlooks on their respective faith and lopped together into one ugly pile of epistemic deficiency.

 

[Caliban]

No, he didn't claim in he was, but he does segue to it while chatting on the phone about the topic of 'evidence' with a caller.

Simply, that perhaps you rely too much on Dillahunty's epistemological evaluations as they may pertain to whatever level of "sufficiency of evidence" you think/feel should qualify the bible as a form of revelation from God.

My question to you is: do you always bite the hand that tries to feed you? I mean, I'm not very much appreciating your earlier comment about how you "forgot where you were," as if all Christians can just be stereotyped in their epistemic outlooks on their respective faith and lopped together into one ugly pile of epistemic deficiency.

You brought up the Dillahunty clip and then say I am relying on his evaluations too much. This is why I said earlier that 'I forgot where I was.' Here's a challenge, start an anonymous account on this forum or another Christian website and identify as an atheist or skeptic. Then ask one or two questions about the faith that challenge the claims of Christians. Let's see all the vile and inhospitable semantic garbage that snarly flies at you. You do it to me, other's do it to me and those like me. It takes a lot of civility to ignore it and let it go. Sometimes I don't but, I never blast them like I could. So if you feel mildly perturbed, I apologize.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You brought up the Dillahunty clip and then say I am relying on his evaluations too much. This is why I said earlier that 'I forgot where I was.' Here's a challenge, start an anonymous account on this forum or another Christian website and identify as an atheist or skeptic. Then ask one or two questions about the faith that challenge the claims of Christians. Let's see all the vile and inhospitable semantic garbage that snarly flies at you. You do it to me, other's do it to me and those like me. It takes a lot of civility to ignore it and let it go. Sometimes I don't but, I never blast them like I could. So if you feel mildly perturbed, I apologize.

No worries. I apologize, too, for any misunderstanding. Besides, not only have I been occasionally bashed here on CF due to my alternative philosophical Christian position, I've also had the 'honor' of spending a few months on an anti-Christian website a few years ago, in a forum called "the Lion's Den, " if I recall. Oh, that was fun ...!

 

[Caliban]

No worries. I apologize, too, for any misunderstanding. Besides, not only have I been occasionally bashed here on CF due to my alternative philosophical Christian position, I've also had the 'honor' of spending a few months on an anti-Christian website a few years ago, in a forum called "the Lion's Den, " if I recall. Oh, that was fun ...!

Sorry you had to experience that. I find that the higher the confidence level a person has in their belief, the more intolerant they become with dissenting opinion. I get the temptation for intelligent people to use their wit to rhetorically beat their opponent. I do it sometimes but, I always regret it. There are atheists, septics, and a host of other non/questioning believers. I think the fact that we are here is a good faith sign that we care about one of the biggest questions humans ever faced--is their a God. I don't think there is but, I sure did for 40 years. My wife still does, my kids do, I'm still in the game of thinking about this--at least for now. Cheers to thinking with me and being a good sport.

 

[Tone]

you are not a witness of the existence of a God

Am too.

Try Googling

I'm too school for google...

Everything is second hand

I have first hand encounter with Messiah.

 

[Caliban]

Am too.



I'm too school for google...



I have first hand encounter with Messiah.

Cool story man. I suppose you shook his hand. Maybe that was your Uber driver. C'mon be serious.

 

[Tone]

Cool story man. I suppose you shook his hand. Maybe that was your Uber driver. C'mon be serious.

Didn't you say you were a Christian for 40 years...how did that happen without receiving the Holy Breath of Yah?

Whatever the Gospel is...it is of such import that whatever is called "natural", i.e. whatever is "scientifically understood"...is temporarily put on hold...

Or maybe, encapsulated in the giving of the Message itself; the speaker and/or the hearers are lifted into a higher...almost timeless plane of existence.

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.”


Blessed are the feet of the Messengers...you are standing on Holy Ground.

 

[Caliban]

Didn't you say you were a Christian for 40 years...how did that happen without receiving the Holy Breath of Yah?

Whatever the Gospel is...it is of such import that whatever is called "natural", i.e. whatever is "scientifically understood"...is temporarily put on hold...

Or maybe, encapsulated in the giving of the Message itself; the speaker and/or the hearers are lifted into a higher...almost timeless plane of existence.

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.”


Blessed are the feet of the Messengers...you are standing on Holy Ground.

Oh okay, I guess you win. Good luck.

 

[Tone]

Oh okay, I guess you win. Good luck.

I don't want to win for myself...no miracles in self... selflessness is where you see the "supernatural".

 

[Tone]

Acts 8
"32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 33In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can recount His descendants? For His life was removed from the earth.” 34“Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. He answered and he said, I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ."

 

[Caliban]

I don't want to win for myself...no miracles in self... selflessness is where you see the "supernatural".

What is that even supposed to mean? Please be clear and specific. There is no point continuing a conversation if you speak in code.

 

[Tone]

What is that even supposed to mean? Please be clear and specific. There is no point continuing a conversation if you speak in code.

Is it natural to lay one's life down for others?

 

[Caliban]

Is it natural to lay one's life down for others?

Yes, people do it all the time. Haven't you ever hear the stories from Medal of Honor recipients or firefighters?

 

[Tone]

Yes, people do it all the time. Haven't you ever hear the stories from Medal of Honor recipients or firefighters?

Is there a "scientific understanding" for this?

 

[Caliban]

Is there a "scientific understanding" for this?

Why would you need science to tell you what is obvious. That's like asking if there is scientific evidence for why you are on the internet. I think you are trying to play game with words to get me to some silly conclusion but, it's not working.

 

[Caliban]

W

Acts 8
"32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 33In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can recount His descendants? For His life was removed from the earth.” 34“Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. He answered and he said, I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ."

This is off topic. It has nothing to do with epistemology.