Your epistemology

[James_Lai]

Hello.

I heard many times on this forum and elsewhere, that it doesn’t matter what you like to believe or want God to be like, it’s objective truth that matters. Discover truth and if you’re satisfied it’s true, accept it. Be brave and honest enough to face truth. Great piece of advice.

But then what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point do you say “this is true” and “that is an error” or maybe even “that’s a lie”?

There’re things we can decide more or less easily about, such as, “today’s Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy - “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”, for example.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

 

[eleos1954]

Hello.

I heard many times on this forum and elsewhere, that it doesn’t matter what you like to believe or want God to be like, it’s the objective truth that matters. Discover the truth and if you’re satisfied it’s the truth, accept it. Be brave and honest enough to face truth. Great piece of advice.

But then what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point you say “this is true”and when you say “this is an error” or maybe even “it’s a lie”?

There’s things we can decide easily about, such as, “today is Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

Truth is dependent on what one uses as their base (stand point). And there are many bases from which people come from.

Truth is largely subjective and meaning is highly interpretive. Knowledge is always viewed from a particular standpoint.

 

[Lukaris]

I believe in the need to apply my conscience in trying to live by the Lord’s commandments ( Matthew 19:16-19. Matthew 22:36-40 etc.) day by day in this world. Am I good example?: No.

 

[Clare73]

Hello.

I heard many times on this forum and elsewhere, that it doesn’t matter what you like to believe or want God to be like, it’s objective truth that matters. Discover truth and if you’re satisfied it’s true, accept it. Be brave and honest enough to face truth. Great piece of advice.

But then what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point do you say “this is true” and “that is an error” or maybe even “that’s a lie”?

There’re things we can decide more or less easily about, such as, “today’s Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy - “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”, for example.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

First of all, faith in Christianity is by the operation of the Holy Spirit, not just by human decision.
Secondly, the faith which the Holy Spirit works in a person is faith in the revelation of God in the Scriptures (Bible).
My approach in regards to faith is that all Scripture is God-breathed, and since the death of Christ, the apostolic teaching of the NT is authoritative for all Christianity, and is to be believed and obeyed.

My epistemology is simply the "Bible" understood in light of all the Bible, the NT Scriptures concluding the truth of all Scripture.

 

[Tolworth John]

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

Unfortunately this is rubbish, there is only one universal approach to information.
Is it true or not.

Example, Is Jesus a myth? Look at the evidence, and it is clear Jesus was a history figure.
Is Jesus what Christianity claims? Again look at the evidence, present ones argument why he isn't or accept the truth of Christianity.

 

[timf]

Jesus said all who were of the truth would hear his voice.

Being "of the truth" is a condition that is hardly recognizable anymore. We live in a time of unprecedented self-indulgence and emphasis on how we feel.

The bible tells us that light had come into the world, but people hated the light because their deeds were evil.

The person that searches for truth (is of the truth) has to cut through all of the baloney in the world. Sadly some of this baloney is in Christian circles.

Liberal churches tend to elevate a perspective that elevates feelings of self-righteousness produced by seeing themselves as tolerant. Conservative churches can elevate feelings of self-righteousness produced by seeing themselves successful in rule following.

It is interesting to observe how easy it is to turn from seeking truth to seeking comfort.

It has been said, "I am embarrassed by what I thought five years ago. I hope to be embarrassed five years from now by what I think today". This helps illustrate that the path of truth in not so much "finding the right church" as it is a constant process of learning and growth.

 

[Martinius]

...what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point do you say “this is true” and “that is an error” or maybe even “that’s a lie”?

There’re things we can decide more or less easily about, such as, “today’s Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy - “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”, for example.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

To me, for something to be factually true it must be observable or detectable, verifiable, and repeatable; something that can be observed or detected by our senses, or our enhanced senses (via telescopes, microscopes, etc.).

Much of what we call "faith" cannot be proven to be factually true. Which is why we accept it as an article of faith.

But, some of the things that mankind (or groups of people) once accepted by faith has now been shown to be factually true or false. The belief that the earth was the center of a very small universe, or the supernatural causes for comets and earthquakes, for example. We now know the reality of an unimaginably large universe, where we (people and the earth) are the minutest speck of dust in it. And we know the science behind comets and earthquakes.

Unfortunately, many people want to "prove" that the tenets of their faith are factual and provable. To use an example in a prior post, we can agree that Jesus was a real person; there is sufficient evidence for that. But we can never prove in a factual way what his relationship to God was/is. That must be an article of faith. The same applies to many other Christian doctrines. Raimundo Panikkar wrote this:

"There is something blasphemous about every theodicy and every form of apologetics. To want to justify God, to prove God’s existence or even defend God, implies that we are presenting ourselves as the very foundation of God. We are transforming ontology into epistemology."

That we can't prove or even come close to agreeing on much of what constitutes a true faith or belief system is okay. It is not essential that we "prove" our beliefs, which is impossible anyway. But many people do not like or accept that, it makes them uneasy, even threatened. They want to be assured, want to be certain that what they believe is absolutely correct, indisputable. That is a very immature view of life, of God and of faith. And as we have seen over the centuries, it can also be very dangerous.

 

[Clare73]

To me, for something to be factually true it must be observable or detectable, verifiable, and repeatable; something that can be observed or detected by our senses, or our enhanced senses (via telescopes, microscopes, etc.).

Much of what we call "faith" cannot be proven to be factually true. Which is why we accept it as an article of faith.

But, some of the things that mankind (or groups of people) once accepted by faith has now been shown to be factually true or false. The belief that the earth was the center of a very small universe, or the supernatural causes for comets and earthquakes, for example. We now know the reality of an unimaginably large universe, where we (people and the earth) are the minutest speck of dust in it. And we know the science behind comets and earthquakes.

Unfortunately, many people want to "prove" that the tenets of their faith are factual and provable. To use an example in a prior post, we can agree that Jesus was a real person; there is sufficient evidence for that. But we can never prove in a factual way what his relationship to God was/is. That must be an article of faith. The same applies to many other Christian doctrines. Raimundo Panikkar wrote this:

"There is something blasphemous about every theodicy and every form of apologetics. To want to justify God, to prove God’s existence or even defend God, implies that we are presenting ourselves as the very foundation of God. We are transforming ontology into epistemology."

That we can't prove or even come close to agreeing on much of what constitutes a true faith or belief system is okay. It is not essential that we "prove" our beliefs, which is impossible anyway. But many people do not like or accept that, it makes them uneasy, even threatened. They want to be assured, want to be certain that what they believe is absolutely correct, indisputable. That is a very immature view of life, of God and of faith. And as we have seen over the centuries, it can also be very dangerous.

So in the realm of faith, how do you decide what is truth for you to believe?

 

[Martinius]

So in the realm of faith, how do you decide what is truth for you to believe?

It is more of an ongoing process than a one time "this is it" kind of process. Although, I have some of those "this is it" moments within that process. For me, it has been happening for better than a half century, and it will never finish.

For the most part, I decide according to what "feels" right in my heart. And I do use Jesus as my main reference point. It is like those WWJD bracelets that people wore some years ago (maybe still do). In the realm of faith, I don't really know of anything that I can say is absolutely given or true. In the Catholic Church, we "profess our faith" using the words "I believe..."; it is never "I know to be absolutely factually correct...".

The word believe can mean "to trust" or "to have faith in". For example, if I say I believe in you, I am saying that I have faith in you, that I trust you will do or be whatever it is we are talking about. When Jesus said to people that to be his disciple they needed to "believe in" God, it didn't mean to believe in the existence of God (that was assumed to be true) but rather to have faith in God, to place their trust in God. And that same invitation comes to us from Jesus every moment of every day.

Side note: I get a chuckle out of the license plates and plate frames that read "In God We Trust". I chuckle because I am very certain that they have plenty of insurance on that BMW, and that many of them probably trust their investment advisor way more than they do God (just my opinion based on experience).

 

[Clare73]

It is more of an ongoing process than a one time "this is it" kind of process. Although, I have some of those "this is it" moments within that process. For me, it has been happening for better than a half century, and it will never finish.
For the most part, I decide according to what "feels" right in my heart. And I do use Jesus as my main reference point. It is like those WWJD bracelets that people wore some years ago

(maybe still do). In the realm of faith, I don't really know of anything that I can say is absolutely given or true. In the Catholic Church, we "profess our faith" using the words
"I believe..."; it is never "I know to be absolutely factually correct...".

'Tis the nature of faith to be certain.

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

We "know" (1 John 3:14, 16, 19, 24, 4:13).

The word believe can mean "to trust" or "to have faith in". For example, if I say I believe in you, I am saying that I have faith in you, that I trust you will do or be whatever it is we are talking about. When Jesus said to people that to be his disciple they needed to "believe in" God, it didn't mean to believe in the existence of God (that was assumed to be true) but rather to have faith in God, to place their trust in God. And that same invitation comes to us from Jesus every moment of every day.

Side note: I get a chuckle out of the license plates and plate frames that read "In God We Trust". I chuckle because I am very certain that they have plenty of insurance on that BMW, and that many of them probably trust their investment advisor way more than they do God (just my opinion based on experience).

 

[Martinius]

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

'Tis the nature of faith to be certain We "know" (1 John 3:14, 16, 19, 24, 4:13).

The two Bibles I referenced about these passages use different words instead of "sure" and "certain" and indicate that the Greek words could be translated in different ways. In any case, this is not knowing in the factual sense like we know gravity and the sun exist. It is knowing what we believe, it is about having confidence in those beliefs, having a strong faith.

The same applies to the quotes from 1 John. He talks about "how we know" and the "way we know". Again, not factual knowledge, but in the sense of understanding, realizing and/or accepting what we believe.

I am not a big fan of "proof-texting" since that could take us all to the end of time without a resolution. It is interesting to me, however, that the quotes are from two epistles, and not from Jesus himself.

My conclusion is that it is not the nature of faith to be certain in a factual, provable way. Faith does not deal in factual certainty, but in belief and trust

 

[Clare73]

The two Bibles I referenced about these passages use different words instead of "sure" and "certain" and indicate that the Greek words could be translated in different ways.

"Certain" (elegmos) actually means "proof."
"Faith is the. . .proof of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

In any case, this is not knowing in the factual sense like we know gravity and the sun exist. It is knowing what we believe, it is about having confidence in those beliefs, having a strong faith. The same applies to the quotes from
1 John. He talks about "how we know" and the "way we know".

But does that alter the fact that we know?

Again, not factual knowledge, but in the sense of understanding, realizing and/or accepting what we believe.
I am not a big fan of "proof-texting" since that could take us all to the end of time without a resolution.

I believe Scripture is knowable, and I know of no other way to actually establish what the apostolic teaching actually is.

It is interesting to me, however, that the quotes are from two epistles, and not from Jesus himself.

It illustrates my epistemology quite well.
Are the words in red any more the word of God than the epistles?

My conclusion is that it is not the nature of faith to be certain in a factual, provable way.
Faith does not deal in factual certainty, but in belief and trust

Does our knowledge of what is certain come only from the empirical?
Can the empirical assess all that is true and certain?

 

[Martinius]

Oh boy, here we go. This is exactly the reason I stayed away for four years. Endless and fruitless debates. Alas, it was nice while it lasted.

The empirical cannot assess all that is true and certain.

I have no argument with that at all. I am sorry you don't understand that I am not saying that our faith is without truth and certainty. I am talking about verifiable, empirical kind of certainty. I don't expect my faith or anyone else's faith to have that "kind" of certainty, for if it did there would be no disagreements or differences of opinion. There would be indisputable truth. At least with most people, since we know there are some who still think the earth is flat.

Are the words in red any more the word of God than the Epistles?

The problem is that the "word of God" was not given to us in English. We are reading translations and interpretations of Greek text mostly, with some Hebrew and Aramaic thrown in. I was in a discussion very recently about a word in French and what it should be translated to in English (since I travel into Ontario and Quebec each year I have to be somewhat versed in those languages). Turns out there are several English words that the French word can be translated into. So we were both correct!

Another related problem is the length of time. Languages and the words in them change over time; look at Old English, Elizabethan English and modern English. One needs an etymologist to read Shakespeare's sonnets. So even the brightest bible scholars cannot be certain what those original words meant to those who heard or read them.

The end result is that WE, today, do not really know what the exact words of God are in much of the Bible. Added to that are the changes that were made in the text in the copying (and in translating and interpreting), which is evident by the differences in various versions of the same text, and we have even more difficulty in determining the "truth".

That is one very big reason I avoid proof-texting and cutting out short passages and phrases from the context of the writings. People get lost, literally and figuratively, in trying to make sense out of all these, sometimes conflicting or confusing, passages. Instead, I look at the big picture, which is simply this: What is Jesus telling us in the Gospels? What does he want us to do? What are his expectations? What is his overriding and quite clear message? As some wise Hebrew scholar said, the rest is commentary.

 

[Clare73]

Oh boy, here we go. This is exactly the reason I stayed away for four years. Endless and fruitless debates.

I am surprised by your low view of the word of God written.

Alas, it was nice while it lasted.
I have no argument with that at all. I am sorry you don't understand that I am not saying that our faith is without truth and certainty.
I am talking about verifiable, empirical kind of certainty.

Moot point. . .who expects the empirical to verify Holy Spirit reality?
Do we expect an armadillo to verify mathematical theorems?
Does the fact that he cannot have any bearing on the theorems?

I don't expect my faith or anyone else's faith to have that "kind" of certainty,

Mine does, and Christian history is replete with those that do.

for if it did there would be no disagreements or differences of opinion.

The disagreements are not about the existence of the spiritual realities themselves.

There would be indisputable truth. At least with most people, since we know there are some who still think the earth is flat.
The problem is that the "word of God" was not given to us in English. We are reading translations and interpretations of Greek text mostly, with some Hebrew and Aramaic thrown in. I was in a discussion very recently about a word in French and what it should be translated to in English (since I travel into Ontario and Quebec each year I have to be somewhat versed in those languages). Turns out there are several English words that the French word can be translated into. So we were both correct!

Another related problem is the length of time. Languages and the words in them change over time; look at Old English, Elizabethan English and modern English. One needs an etymologist to read Shakespeare's sonnets. So even the brightest bible scholars cannot be certain what those original words meant to those who heard or read them.

The end result is that WE, today, do not really know what the exact words of God are in much of the Bible. Added to that changes that were made in the text in the copying (and in translating and interpreting), which is evident by the differences in various versions of the same text, and we have even more difficulty in determining the "truth".

That is one very big reason I avoid proof-texting and cutting out short passages and phrases from the context of the writings. People get lost, literally and figuratively, in trying to make sense out of all these, sometimes conflicting or confusing, passages.

But it all makes perfect sense to me, it all agreeing with itself. And I am not the only one in the history of Christianity of that persuasion.
I'm not talking about prophecy, of course, which is given in riddles (Numbers 12:8).

Instead, I look at the big picture, which is simply this: What is Jesus telling us in the Gospels? What does he want us to do? What are his expectations? What is his overriding and quite clear message? As some wise Hebrew scholar said, the rest is commentary.

I note his glibness (as well as your own). . .and feel sorry for him, he is missing so much.

 

[Martinius]

Mine does, and Christian history is replete with those that do.

If you can provide us all with empirical, verifiable, repeatable evidence confirming that what you believe regarding your faith is factually true (as true and real as the earth we live on), you will have accomplished something that no one else has ever, ever done in human history, on the level of a miracle (oops, no, that does not work for miracles or they wouldn't be miracles).

You are, for some reason, either not reading what I write, or are not understanding it. For that, I apologize for not explaining better and more clearly.

I think it's time for me to drop out of this thread, since it is going nowhere fast. But it was a great question, initially.

Peace and blessings;
Stay safe, warm and well;
Merry Christmas

 

[Clare73]

If you can provide us all with empirical, verifiable, repeatable evidence confirming that what you believe regarding your faith is factually true

Why would I want to do that?
I do not agree that empiricism is the evaluator of all truth, only of the truth within its realm; i.e., the material.
My "certainty of things not seen" does not rest on empiricism.

Let those whose faith requires it provide it.

(as true and real as the earth we live on), you will have accomplished something that no one else has ever, ever done in human history, on the level of a miracle (oops, no, that does not work for miracles or they wouldn't be miracles).

You are, for some reason, either not reading what I write, or are not understanding it. For that, I apologize for not explaining better and more clearly.

I think it's time for me to drop out of this thread, since it is going nowhere fast. But it was a great question, initially.

Peace and blessings;
Stay safe, warm and well;
Merry Christmas

No need to apologize, you did well.

The premise was a nothing-burger to begin with, and you realized that. I respect you for that.
Some materialist along the way sold you a bill of goods on the ultimate authority of "empiricism."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello.

I heard many times on this forum and elsewhere, that it doesn’t matter what you like to believe or want God to be like, it’s objective truth that matters. Discover truth and if you’re satisfied it’s true, accept it. Be brave and honest enough to face truth. Great piece of advice.

But then what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point do you say “this is true” and “that is an error” or maybe even “that’s a lie”?

There’re things we can decide more or less easily about, such as, “today’s Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy - “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”, for example.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

Where epistemology and religion are concerned, I filter the possible interplay of these through as many diverse, scholarly evaluations as a I have time in life to review ...


... Then, too, I tend to suppose that making a few pleas to the Supreme Being for discernment along the way doesn't hurt either.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hello.

I heard many times on this forum and elsewhere, that it doesn’t matter what you like to believe or want God to be like, it’s objective truth that matters. Discover truth and if you’re satisfied it’s true, accept it. Be brave and honest enough to face truth. Great piece of advice.

But then what’s your criteria for something to be true? At which point do you say “this is true” and “that is an error” or maybe even “that’s a lie”?

There’re things we can decide more or less easily about, such as, “today’s Wednesday” or “it’s a glass”, but others not so easy - “God exists” or “Jesus is a myth”, for example.

I know there can’t be one size fits all universal approach to all and any information.

What are your approaches in regards to faith?

My approach in regards to faith is the same as regards to anything. The goal is to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. If I believe false things those false beliefs are inconsequential to mine or anyone else's well being. We are all either convinced or unconvinced by the evidence and how we evaluate it. My criteria changes based on the claim. If someone says they own a grey Toyota, I would believe them without any more evidence since this is not an uncommon claim. If it is false it really does not affect me in any way. If someone claims they can talk to ghosts then I would need more good evidence for that claim than just their word. In general, for me to be convinced a god exists any evidence cannot be logically fallacious and can be directly linked to the claim.

 

[Clare73]

My approach in regards to faith is the same as regards to anything. The goal is to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. If I believe false things those false beliefs are inconsequential to mine or anyone else's well being. We are all either convinced or unconvinced by the evidence and how we evaluate it. My criteria changes based on the claim. If someone says they own a grey Toyota, I would believe them without any more evidence since this is not an uncommon claim. If it is false it really does not affect me in any way. If someone claims they can talk to ghosts then I would need more good evidence for that claim than just their word.

In general, for me to be convinced a god exists any evidence cannot be logically fallacious and can be directly linked to the claim.

And the God that exists presents just such evidence for which, as has been revealed to anb by Paul,
we are all held accountable. (Romans 1:19-23)

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And the God that exists presents just such evidence for which, as has been revealed to anb by Paul, we are all held accountable. (Romans 1:19-23)

And I can confidently say that this verse is wrong. I do not believe god exists no matter what this verse says. The universe existence is not good evidence that a god exists.