Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Also not sure who he's remotely referring to that in the past few years claimed epistemology is unimportant, that seems like a convenient strawmanMeh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.
I'm not sure either.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
Meh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.
Meh. Generally, Philo, I find that you just use "epistemology" as a tactic to avoid answering a question.
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.How would Consciousness fit into the ways of perceiving the world?
I am a recovering evidentialist as I followed Josh McDowell's approach
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.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
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
"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.
What did you find when you researched "Evidentialism?"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?"
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.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.
Our non-theist friends make an elementary epistemic mistake when they try to do this. All the while bragging about how smart they are.
You might want to investigate Reformed Epistemology.
Not really, thank you. Just addressing questions directly will be enough.Do you want the God's honest truth about my "use"?
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.
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
Not really, thank you. Just addressing questions directly will be enough.
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?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 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?
Is wiki not functioning properly?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?