Epistemology or "E did what to Imself?"

[muichimotsu]

Meh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.

Also not sure who he's remotely referring to that in the past few years claimed epistemology is unimportant, that seems like a convenient strawman

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Also not sure who he's remotely referring to that in the past few years claimed epistemology is unimportant, that seems like a convenient strawman

I'm not sure either.
Epistemology is no doubt an important subject. But, in my dealings with Philo, I've found that he generally uses it to avoid answering tough questions.

 

[muichimotsu]

Or suggesting that the lack of absolute certainty for such fundamental problems like hard solipsism or such means somehow we can't make knowledge claims...borders on presuppositionalist transcendental arguments which are painful

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.

Oh really? Then why don't you have that conversation with @Clizby WampusCat.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh really?[/USER].

Yes. Really.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.

Do you want the God's honest truth about my "use"?

 

[Uber Genius]

How would Consciousness fit into the ways of perceiving the world?

I think I would need a definition of what you mean when you say consciousness. In the common usage we would define it as what we are aware of, but there are philosophy of mind definitions, and eastern mysticism definitions that would differ greatly.

Introspection seems to be the faculty that surveys our internal state including how we feel emotionally, and our thoughts, and our beleifs (which don't necessarily correspond to our thoughts).

But let me know in what sense you are using the word consciousness.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I am a recovering evidentialist as I followed Josh McDowell's approach

I guess I'm a little unclear about that term applying to a theist. I understand Atheistic Evidentalism. I follow Hugh Ross who tends to make arguments for old earth Christianity based on science and so on does that qualify? What I've seen or remember about Josh McDowell from years ago, he was very different from Ross, I thought following all Lee Strobel, Case for Christ stuff, which I thought followed a lot of the tradition of C.S. Lewis, CK Chesterton etc.

 

[Uber Genius]

Our ability to engage the external world is better because our brains are far more developed in developing a sense of self and introspection about the world in those rational considerations of causality, etc. Animals can correlate some of that, but supposedly they have far less object permanence, among other aspects of human thought that allow us to understand things much better

So here we have another appeal that seems ad hoc and relies on psychologizing. It sounds like a just-so story. It is not in line with neurology whatsoever.

That said, before we trail off on a wild goose chase,

"Which of the methods of understanding our world highlighted in the Stanford article above might be hard to explain naturalistically?"

A difficulty to explain something doesn't render it less reliable when we can point out the self correcting and generally beneficial in improving understanding with correlation to others in our accounts. Not sure why the metaphysics of our epistemological aspects is entirely relevant to whether those methods of learning are more or less reliable except as one is trying to tear down something that's an imagined opponent based on concluding that your approach is "better" in some way

Again, you are misunderstanding the nature of the OP.

I said:

"What can we call knowledge?" There are several differing views of the limits of human understanding and each view limits what can be labeled "Knowledge." I am starting this thread because often members are engaging one another with differing epistemic assumptions that are the root cause of the disagreement in their respective claims.

If you want to respond with an naturalistic explanation of how we understand our world given evolution, by all means. That is a foundation that will color not only your religious views but every other area of human understanding. How you don't see that as relevant is a little confusing.

But let's proceed with you giving your account and perhaps we can examine why it may or may not influence all of your knowledge claims.

 

[Uber Genius]

I guess I'm a little unclear about that term applying to a theist. I understand Atheistic Evidentalism. I follow Hugh Ross who tends to make arguments for old earth Christianity based on science and so on does that qualify? What I've seen or remember about Josh McDowell from years ago, he was very different from Ross, I thought following all Lee Strobel, Case for Christ stuff, which I thought followed a lot of the tradition of C.S. Lewis, CK Chesterton etc.

What did you find when you researched "Evidentialism?"

 

[Pavel Mosko]

What did you find when you researched "Evidentialism?"

I get it. It's the Elvis thing.


Evidentialism is a thesis in epistemology which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports his or her belief. Evidentialism is therefore a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not.


I've just never thought or considered applying that label to a Christian, I actually almost thought is was mutually exclusive to Christianity (unless your doubting Thomas etc). It's almost been exclusively applied to modern atheists. For Ross though I guess I can see it (he claims to be converted through an empirical study of both science and World Regions).


I guess part of the confusion if you apply that label is the use of legal type testimony and evidence as "proof", while many atheists reject that line of thinking and want scientific proof, physical evidence, or at least some kind of logical argument as proof etc. I basically equated Evidentialism as being purely about the latter and not the former.


It's possible I might a semi-Evidentialist. But Utilitarianism is a big thing for me, and that its similar but a little different.

 

[Uber Genius]

I get it. It's the Elvis thing.


Evidentialism is a thesis in epistemology which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports his or her belief. Evidentialism is therefore a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not.


I've just never thought or considered applying that label to a Christian, I actually almost thought is was mutually exclusive to Christianity (unless your doubting Thomas etc). It's almost been exclusively applied to modern atheists. For Ross though I guess I can see it (he claims to be converted through an empirical study of both science and World Regions).


I guess part of the confusion if you apply that label is the use of legal type testimony and evidence as "proof", while many atheists reject that line of thinking and want scientific proof, physical evidence, or at least some kind of logical argument as proof etc. I basically equated Evidentialism as being purely about the latter and not the former.


It's possible I might a semi-Evidentialist. But Utilitarianism is a big thing for me, and that its similar but a little different.

Evidentialism is a technical term which you correctly identified above. It doesn't allow the ability to be modified in the way we modify non-technical language. But your point is fair. Further Evidentialism would apply to all one's beliefs, not just religious. So it is deeper foundationally than just one area. You would need evidence to believe that there was an external world, other people, a real past, and Descartes has given us reason to believe we could be trapped in the matrix.

Some Christians in scripture had a sense of God's presence that appears impossible to defeat, much the way it is hard for us to defeat the belief that we are engaging each other on CF through a computer, laptop, tablet, or phone as we type. Yet tomorrow, we will not be able to prove that fact scientifically. Even if we have photos, video, witnesses, that would only give us historical or legal knowledge, but not rise to the level of scientific knowledge since we couldn't repeat the event or demonstrate causation, etc.

How does one prove the existence of an immaterial being, when one has a method limited to describing only material beings? Oops.
Our non-theist friends make an elementary epistemic mistake when they try to do this. All the while bragging about how smart they are.

While the disciples, and later, every believer, are called to give an account of their Christian belief, the large majority of believers presented by the various authors in scripture contain no such discussions. Acts, however is filled with those accounts as the new church spreads across Mesopotamia into Asia Minor, Greece then Rome. You might want to investigate Reformed Epistemology. It doesn't preclude evidence and argument, but doesn't necessitate them for properly basic beliefs.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Our non-theist friends make an elementary epistemic mistake when they try to do this. All the while bragging about how smart they are.

Yes I've encountered plenty Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff.

You might want to investigate Reformed Epistemology.

I suppose at some point it might warrant a second look. Years ago I've read about how Aristotle is the basis of much of Western and Eastern theology, but some of the differences in East and West as coming from how that philosophy was transmitted from language coming either directly from the Greek vs. from Arabic translations of old Greek and Christian writings.


https://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-East-West-Bradshaw/dp/0521035562

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Do you want the God's honest truth about my "use"?

Not really, thank you. Just addressing questions directly will be enough.

 

[muichimotsu]

So here we have another appeal that seems ad hoc and relies on psychologizing. It sounds like a just-so story. It is not in line with neurology whatsoever.

Not sure I remotely claimed I was speaking in terms of neurology and I don't posit any sort of knowledge to that degree anyway beyond what experts argue based on evidence, which is that our sense of self and consciousness is primarily, if not exclusively, rooted in brain states, undermining any notion of a soul that any religious or spiritual person posits

If you want to respond with an naturalistic explanation of how we understand our world given evolution, by all means. That is a foundation that will color not only your religious views but every other area of human understanding. How you don't see that as relevant is a little confusing.

But let's proceed with you giving your account and perhaps we can examine why it may or may not influence all of your knowledge claims

Evolution does not have to be relevant in explaining our justification of knowledge we observe, evolution at most can factor into the development of our frontal lobe to the point where we continue to innovate and develop technology, tools, art, etc. That's neurological or psychological at most, but it's not strictly related to epistemology except in how confident we are about it being evidenced and justified by that evidence

You're making a leap in logic to suggest that believing evolution is the best explanation for diversity of life is remotely connected to the justifying framework that underlies the science that supports it by consistent observations and study.

Our understanding of the world in terms of evolution applies to many natural sciences, but I doubt most people would apply the biological model in terms of our understanding of epistemology itself and I fail to see how it's remotely self evident or the like that holding that we evolved rather than being created colors our understanding of epistemology and logic rather than metaphysics or aesthetics and perhaps ethics as well.

A grandiose claim requires concurrently extraordinary justification for it rather than just speaking as if it's obvious and commonsense, neither of which are sufficient except in rhetorical quips

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not really, thank you. Just addressing questions directly will be enough.

Ok. The God's honest truth is that hardly anyone here has really got into the nitty-gritty of their own epistemological shortcomings. And I have thus far, for the last few years, at best, barely scratched the surface regarding the epistemological complexities and complications accompanying human thought and religion, leaving everyone else to bath in their own assurances regarding their own axiomatic preferences.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ok. The God's honest truth is that hardly anyone here has really got into the nitty-gritty of their own epistemological shortcomings. And I have thus far, for the last few years, at best, barely scratched the surface regarding the epistemological complexities and complications accompanying human thought and religion, leaving everyone else to bath in their own assurances regarding their own axiomatic preferences.

perhaps the reason nobody's gotten deep into your epistemological discussions, Philo, is they're unnecessary. Perhaps you think that epistemology is an important issue when answering the kind of theological questions we get on CF, but I generally find it to be a distraction, and an unnecessary one. Maybe you should start your own thread about it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

perhaps the reason nobody's gotten deep into your epistemological discussions, Philo, is they're necessary. Perhaps you think that epistemology is an important issue when answering the kind of theological questions we get on CF, but I generally find it to be a distraction, and an unnecessary one. Maybe you should start your own thread about it?

"My" epistemology? Necessary discussions like those I've already engaged in here for the last few years?

Do I have to repeat in intricate detail and ad nauseum that I don't have a "systematic" epistemology for my faith? Obviously I don't, and I've never claimed I've had one or that there even should be one! I only approach epistemology in a more systematic, maybe even foundationalistic manner (of whatever level of Foundationalism is most real and relevant) if and when I'm engaging in either science and/or technological marvels ...

... but for Faith, it should be obvious that it's a whole different epistemic game, one that many other people are mistakenly requiring to be the same one we'd play if we are doing science. The problem with this is that IF God is a required element in the whole of epistemic endeavor toward the having of faith---and the Bible says He is---then the overall process of any one person's coming to faith in Christ won't be through one that enables us to fully comprehend that same process. In light of this, we have to realize that when moving through an act of faith, there are some aspects of it which will remain purposely hidden from and controlled by God alone.

So, as far as the Christian faith is concerned, and very much UNLIKE when any of us might want to build an efficient cell phone, car, plane, or rocket ship (or produce the latest pharmaceutical drug for the supposed 'health' of the masses), we will only, and only EVER WILL be, able to get at something like half of the picture of Christianity all by our own human ingenuity.

So, this is what I've been saying all along, even if I've done so with the allusions I've made to Pascal and Kierkegaard and the Philosophical Hermeneuticists (and some others I haven't yet mentioned; and even if I did, I think most of whom would just get ignored around here anyway .... .... since these epistemic theorists I rely on won't tell us that we can just all cough up the evidential "beef" for Jesus that many are seemingly so hungry for.)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Is wiki not functioning properly?

I did not post it.

If one copies and pastes into notepad before posting it online to delete the unnecessary the links will not copy over.

 

[BigV]

The account above suggests we have 5 ways of perceiving the world: Senses, Memory, Rationality, Testimony, Introspection.

Are there sources of knowledge you privilege over others?

Are there sources of knowledge you discount over others?

Where does a divine revelation fit into your epistemology? Especially if the information is revealed while one is in a trance like state.