Epistemology or "E did what to Imself?"

[InterestedAtheist]

"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 only approach epistemology in a more systematic, maybe even foundationalistic manner (of whatever level of Foundationalism is most real and relevant) if and when talking about either science and/or technological marvels ...

... but for Faith, it should be obvious that it's a whole different epistemic game that everyone is falsely requiring to be the same one we'd play when doing science. the problem with this is that IF God is a required element in the whole---and the Bible says He is---then the overall process of any one person's coming to faith in Christ, won't be one that enables us to fully comprehend the process of that faith since some aspects of it are and will remain purposely hidden and controlled by God.

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.)

Honestly, I didn't bother to read all of that, Philo.
Basically, you just bring up epistemology whenever there's a direct question you know you can't answer. That's all we need to know.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I don't trust trances when there is common sense. When I was in Jr High, I dabbled in Christian Science, Science of the Mind, Occult and Word of Faith. There really was no big differences among them. I had trances often. For example, I once saw that one of my Teacher's husband was going to get in a car wreck at a specific curve in the road and I told her to warn him. Within a month, it happened. In looking back, I realized that I saw many people driving too fast around that curve and I overheard her say in class that her husband was a fast driver. There was no need for the supernatural to be involved, just observation and common sense. I also, saw many accidents at that curve too.

Many false religions got started from trances or visions.

 

[BigV]

Many false religions got started from trances or visions.

Interesting that you say that. Are you familiar with the following New Testament verses?

NIV Acts 22:1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.
Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.....

17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance....

NIV Acts 10:9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.

Seems to me that is how the Apostles got their revelations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, I didn't bother to read all of that, Philo.
Basically, you just bring up epistemology whenever there's a direct question you know you can't answer. That's all we need to know.

Congratulations on delivering unto me a sound defeat!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There were only five trances in the Bible. such is life.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Congratulations on delivering unto me a sound defeat!

No, no, Philo. You must take the credit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, no, Philo. You must take the credit.

Actually, I can't "take the credit," especially when I have admit, in all honesty, that just about everything I've ever said here on CF (or maybe something like 90% of it) hasn't been derived from my own rational concoctions but borrowed from a bank of scholars, all of whom I am most indebted, and most of whom are sources that many Christians and Skeptics [on CF] either don't read, don't engage, haven't ever heard of before, or just plain ol' don't give a rip about anyway, even if they have heard of them.

So, my failure to do 'proper apologetics' isn't my own. Of course, neither is a failure to do hermeneutics of just about any kind whatsoever my own, either.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Actually, I can't "take the credit," especially when I have admit, in all honesty, that just about everything I've ever said here on CF (or maybe something like 90% of it) hasn't been derived from my own rational concoctions but borrowed from a bank of scholars, all of whom I am most indebted, and most of whom are sources that many Christians and Skeptics [on CF] either don't read, don't engage, haven't ever heard of before, or just plain ol' don't give a rip about anyway, even if they have heard of them.

So, my failure to do 'proper apologetics' isn't my own. Of course, neither is a failure to do hermeneutics of just about any kind whatsoever my own, either.

To put it in simpler words: you try to be find arguments clever enough to defend irrational positions.

 

[muichimotsu]

Actually, I can't "take the credit," especially when I have admit, in all honesty, that just about everything I've ever said here on CF (or maybe something like 90% of it) hasn't been derived from my own rational concoctions but borrowed from a bank of scholars, all of whom I am most indebted, and most of whom are sources that many Christians and Skeptics [on CF] either don't read, don't engage, haven't ever heard of before, or just plain ol' don't give a rip about anyway, even if they have heard of them.

So, my failure to do 'proper apologetics' isn't my own. Of course, neither is a failure to do hermeneutics of just about any kind whatsoever my own, either.

There's such a thing as being too humble or just deflecting responsibility, rather than considering that you cannot possibly just parrot everyone else, you have to formulate your own thoughts in terms of your philosophy, even if they aren't absolutely unique, but are something you as an individual think on and can formulate apart from clinging to scholars as if without them you have no basis to argue a point, which is silly

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's such a thing as being too humble or just deflecting responsibility, rather than considering that you cannot possibly just parrot everyone else, you have to formulate your own thoughts in terms of your philosophy, even if they aren't absolutely unique, but are something you as an individual think on and can formulate apart from clinging to scholars as if without them you have no basis to argue a point, which is silly

...and would you say, by chance, that "formulating" my thoughts, even as they pertain to my own view of God, Christ and the Bible, is the same kind of act as would be "systematizing" my thoughts on these same things?

Does Formulation = Systematization?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To put it in simpler words: you try to be find arguments clever enough to defend irrational positions.

No, I don't 'try' to find clever arguments. Rather, those arguments have found me.

 

[muichimotsu]

...and would you say, by chance, that "formulating" my thoughts, even as they pertain to my own view of God, Christ and the Bible, is the same kind of act as would be "systematizing" my thoughts on these same things?

Does Formulation = Systematization?

I don't think I remotely implied that, but me not being able to reference authors in a direct sense does not negate my being influenced by them, but it also means I focus more on my own thoughts as I can present them and they should reasonably stand, as with any argument or position, on their own merit, not on where they came from

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think I remotely implied that, but me not being able to reference authors in a direct sense does not negate my being influenced by them, but it also means I focus more on my own thoughts as I can present them and they should reasonably stand, as with any argument or position, on their own merit, not on where they came from

That sounds like the beginning of Solipsism to me. And that kind of thinking wouldn't pass at the university. No professor wants to see a paper with 'nothing but' your own thoughts scribbled on the paper.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, I don't 'try' to find clever arguments. Rather, those arguments have found me.

No. They haven't.

 

[muichimotsu]

That sounds like the beginning of Solipsism to me. And that kind of thinking wouldn't pass at the university. No professor wants to see a paper with 'nothing but' your own thoughts scribbled on the paper.

No, it's not remotely solipsism, because I'm not making the claim that only my perspective is important, but, as you seem to have ignored, that ANY argument should stand on its own merits, not based on who it comes from

I'm not claiming this is some academic line of argumentation where you'd cite sources in terms of support, this is a far broader notion that appealing to authorities in terms of something being accurate ignores that we tend to fail in a capacity to argue their points ourselves, but just circle back to arguing based on their notoriety, which is fallacious.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

ouch

 

[2PhiloVoid]

ouch

Ouch?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it's not remotely solipsism, because I'm not making the claim that only my perspective is important, but, as you seem to have ignored, that ANY argument should stand on its own merits, not based on who it comes from

I'm not claiming this is some academic line of argumentation where you'd cite sources in terms of support, this is a far broader notion that appealing to authorities in terms of something being accurate ignores that we tend to fail in a capacity to argue their points ourselves, but just circle back to arguing based on their notoriety, which is fallacious.

So, what is it that you mean to say, here?

 

[muichimotsu]

So, what is it that you mean to say, here?

I'm saying arguments should stand far more on their own merits rather than appeals to authority or what can be argued to be needlessly obfuscating systematic analysis that muddies the waters rather than making the issues clear to laypeople in general, which I imagine most posters are, not having the privileged status to read academic texts all the time