Do You Apply Your Epistemology Consistently?

[bluegreenearth]

Whenever I evaluate apologetic arguments, I'm compelled to wonder if these apologists consistently apply their epistemology to other claims. Usually, the apologists I encounter dodge the challenge of applying their epistemology consistently. Instead, I'm offered appeals to special pleading for why they are justified in accepting a positive result of a particular epistemology when it has been applied to a desirable theistic claim but also justified in rejecting an equally positive result from that same epistemology when it has been applied to an unfavorable or competing claim.

For example, some Christians commonly refer to an epistemology which justifies the application of faith in Holy Scriptures and sensory experiences they interpret to be divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as a reliable mechanism for obtaining knowledge of Gods existence and his requirements for humanity. At the same time, the identical or nearly identical epistemology underlies theological claims from other competing religious traditions which are not only incompatible with Christianity but each other as well. This inconsistency is not necessarily a problem for theism in general, but most religious traditions are inherently dogmatic and unwilling to embrace external theological claims.

When confronted with this dilemma, many theists modify or transfer their epistemology grounded on faith to an epistemology grounded on something like emotional appeal or personal experience which may help distinguish their preferred theology from other less desirable theologies, but these epistemological approaches are equally unreliable. For instance, Christians will often say things like, I know Jesus Christ exists as my one true Lord and Savior because I have a personal relationship with him. or I know Christianity is true because Ive experienced positive changes since surrendering my life to the will of God. Meanwhile, nothing prohibits loyal followers of competing religious traditions from using the identical epistemology to distinguish and justify their own theological beliefs.

In more intellectual circles, many theists will modify their epistemology to resemble a scientific or historiographic methodology as a strategy for maintaining confidence in a religious belief. Nevertheless, those intellectually motivated epistemological modifications usually fail at permanently resolving the initial problem of producing positive results that also serve in supporting the interests of unfavorable or competing claims. At the same time none of those strategies successfully mitigate for confirmation bias and may actually depend upon it to achieve the theist's desired goal unlike an epistemology that is actually grounded in a scientific or historiographic methodology.

In all fairness, theists are not prohibited from utilizing a fluid epistemology in that way to justify their beliefs among themselves. If the goal is to reinforce a preferred belief, then adopting the most favorable epistemology or swapping back and forth between multiple epistemologies will serve to achieve that goal regardless of whether or not it corresponds with reality. Furthermore, when changing the epistemic rules at any convenient moment is acceptable or unnoticeable, it becomes relatively easy for apologists to justify theological claims to themselves and other people who already harbor a strong emotional attachment to their shared beliefs. However, it should be noted that every religious tradition retains the same ability to modify their epistemology at will in order to justify and reinforce a preferred theology. More importantly, there is no reason to expect a non-believer to operate under such an unstable and unreliable epistemological model which fails to mitigate for confirmation bias and produces a knowledge base that is inconsistent with or contradictory to the reality they experience.

Questions for consideration and debate:

What is the justification for failing to consistently apply an established epistemology?

How reliable is an epistemology that serves to support multiple competing or contradictory beliefs?

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

I'm not saying that a Theist cannot hold an Agnostic position regarding his or her epistemology. However, now that you mention it, it is an interesting question to ponder because an epistemology is usually required in order to determine if agnosticism is a justified position. In other words, a theist would need to utilize an epistemology in order be agnostic about an epistemology. Nevertheless, I'm asking how the application of your epistemology to this one claim can yield results that equally support both the agnostic and theistic position. Shouldn't the application of a reliable epistemology to a single claim be able to produce a single result? The claim is either unknowable (agnosticism), known to be true (theism), or known to be false (non-theism). If the truth value of the claim is unknowable, than it can't also be known without violating the law of non-contradiction.

William: This post is helpful to me in regard to understanding your argument better.

You have shown your understanding of these positions, so I have something to work with now.

Unknowable = Agnostic

Known to be true = Theism

Known to be false = Non-theism

My perspective is different.

In holding the Agnostic position one cannot agree that theism = Known to be true or Non theism = Known to be false.

Neither of those positions know if we do or do not exist within a Creation as being either true or false.

Those positions may afford the individual to believe either way, but as we Agnostics know, belief is not knowing.

[bluegreenearth]

William: This post is helpful to me in regard to understanding your argument better.

You have shown your understanding of these positions, so I have something to work with now.

Unknowable = Agnostic

Known to be true = Theism

Known to be false = Non-theism

My perspective is different.

In holding the Agnostic position one cannot agree that theism = Known to be true or Non theism = Known to be false.

Neither of those positions know if we do or do not exist within a Creation as being either true or false.

Those positions may afford the individual to believe either way, but as we Agnostics know, belief is not knowing.

I need to make some slight modifications to your summary:

Agnosticism = Do not know if we are living in a created simulation or not.
Gnostic Theism = Knowledge that we are living in a created simulation.
Gnostic Non-Theism = Knowledge that we are not living in a created simulation.

[William]

William: This post is helpful to me in regard to understanding your argument better.

You have shown your understanding of these positions, so I have something to work with now.

Unknowable = Agnostic

Known to be true = Theism

Known to be false = Non-theism

My perspective is different.

In holding the Agnostic position one cannot agree that theism = Known to be true or Non theism = Known to be false.

Neither of those positions know if we do or do not exist within a Creation as being either true or false.

Those positions may afford the individual to believe either way, but as we Agnostics know, belief is not knowing.

I need to make some slight modifications to your summary:

Agnosticism = Do not know if we are living in a created simulation or not.
Gnostic Theism = Knowledge that we are living in a created simulation.
Gnostic Non-Theism = Knowledge that we are not living in a created simulation.

William: Perhaps you are meaning "slight modifications to your summary"?

bluegreenearth: The claim is either unknowable (agnosticism), known to be true (theism), or known to be false (non-theism).

[bluegreenearth]

William: Perhaps you are meaning "slight modifications to your summary"?

bluegreenearth: The claim is either unknowable (agnosticism), known to be true (theism), or known to be false (non-theism).

Yes. However, the way you summarized my summary didn't accurately capture my intended meaning. Hopefully, the revised summary I provided will have resolved that issue.

[William]

William: Perhaps you are meaning "slight modifications to your summary"?

bluegreenearth: The claim is either unknowable (agnosticism), known to be true (theism), or known to be false (non-theism).

Yes. However, the way you summarized my summary didn't accurately capture my intended meaning. Hopefully, the revised summary I provided will have resolved that issue.

William: I did not summarize your take on things. What I did was explain how I see it in relation to those things you listed.
In doing so, I showed that we do not agree and left it open for you to consider my view and - perhaps, if you could - explain why your view is true and mine is not.

You responded by modifying your own summery.

It would be helpful if you could give examples regarding those modifications.

What do you mean by "Gnostic Theism = Knowledge that we are living in a created simulation." and "Gnostic Non-Theism = Knowledge that we are not living in a created simulation."? Can you give examples of this 'knowledge' alluded to? Why did you find it necessary - in modifying your summery - to add "Gnostic" in front of Theism and Non-theism?

[bluegreenearth]

It would be helpful if you could give examples regarding those modifications.

What do you mean by "Gnostic Theism = Knowledge that we are living in a created simulation." and "Gnostic Non-Theism = Knowledge that we are not living in a created simulation."? Can you give examples of this 'knowledge' alluded to? Why did you find it necessary - in modifying your summery - to add "Gnostic" in front of Theism and Non-theism?[/color]

I use the term "gnostic" to describe positions that claim to have knowledge of something. The terms "theism" and "non-theism" could be interpreted as only describing belief positions. While people often equivocate knowledge and belief in their everyday speech, it is important distinguish between the two separate but related concepts in a philosophical discussion in order to avoid confusion. So, in the context of this discussion, I've added the label "gnostic" to distinguish between positions that claims to know we are or are not living in a created simulation and positions that merely describe a state of belief about the proposed idea.

[William]

It would be helpful if you could give examples regarding those modifications.

What do you mean by "Gnostic Theism = Knowledge that we are living in a created simulation." and "Gnostic Non-Theism = Knowledge that we are not living in a created simulation."? Can you give examples of this 'knowledge' alluded to? Why did you find it necessary - in modifying your summery - to add "Gnostic" in front of Theism and Non-theism?[/color]

I use the term "gnostic" to describe positions that claim to have knowledge of something. The terms "theism" and "non-theism" could be interpreted as only describing belief positions. While people often equivocate knowledge and belief in their everyday speech, it is important distinguish between the two separate but related concepts in a philosophical discussion in order to avoid confusion. So, in the context of this discussion, I've added the label "gnostic" to distinguish between positions that claims to know we are or are not living in a created simulation and positions that merely describe a state of belief about the proposed idea.

William: That appears to me to be an unnecessary complication. How does it help to include these in our present discussion?

Those who claim to know that we do or do not live within a Creation? Which position do you hold on the matter?

If it is neither, then we are both on the same page and there is no necessity to further add these sub-positions to the main ones. We can therefore resume discussion without them.

I personally know of no one who claims to know either way.

[bluegreenearth]

William: That appears to me to be an unnecessary complication. How does it help to include these in our present discussion?

Those who claim to know that we do or do not live within a Creation? Which position do you hold on the matter?

If it is neither, then we are both on the same page and there is no necessity to further add these sub-positions to the main ones. We can therefore resume discussion without them.

I personally know of no one who claims to know either way.

I don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation. I accept the logical possibility of either position.

[William]

William: That appears to me to be an unnecessary complication. How does it help to include these in our present discussion?

Those who claim to know that we do or do not live within a Creation? Which position do you hold on the matter?

If it is neither, then we are both on the same page and there is no necessity to further add these sub-positions to the main ones. We can therefore resume discussion without them.

I personally know of no one who claims to know either way.

I don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation. I accept the logical possibility of either position.

William: I don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation. I accept the logical possibility of either position.

So - now that this is stated, we can say we are "on the same page" and being from there?

[bluegreenearth]

William: I don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation. I accept the logical possibility of either position.

So - now that this is stated, we can say we are "on the same page" and being from there?

Under the presumption that we are correctly understanding each other's perspective on this particular point, I'll agree to consider us as being on the same "agnostic" page. However, I always reserve the right to be smarter later if my presumption is subsequently falsified.