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]

William: Which one do you lean toward more? That you are a human being and that is your 'self' or the other?

Intellectual honesty requires me to concede that agnosticism about whether the "self" is contingent upon the existence of the human body or not is the only justifiable position to hold from a perspective that is limited to the only reality I am able experience. However, confirmation bias would have me believe that the "self" could not exist without the human brain. In scientific terms, if the proposed hypothesis is that my human body is just a component of a Reality Simulation I'm experiencing where my concept of "self" exists independently from my brain, then the null hypothesis would be that my concept of "self" is consistent with my common experience of identifying as a human being.

William: If I understand your jargon correctly, are you saying that you lean toward the idea that you are NOT in a Reality Simulation and therefore are happy to 'play the game' given you don't really know one way or the other?

[bluegreenearth]

William: If I understand your jargon correctly, are you saying that you lean toward the idea that you are NOT in a Reality Simulation and therefore are happy to 'play the game' given you don't really know one way or the other?

Not exactly. The word "lean" in the context of your statement implies a deliberate choice to endorse the idea that I am not in a Reality Simulation. It would be more accurate to state that the sensory input I receive does not provide me with another choice but to exist from the perspective of living in the reality I experience. Similarly, it is not that I'm "happy to play the game" but am compelled by demonstrable objective consequences to operate within the reality I experience.

[William]

William: If I understand your jargon correctly, are you saying that you lean toward the idea that you are NOT in a Reality Simulation and therefore are happy to 'play the game' given you don't really know one way or the other?

Not exactly. The word "lean" in the context of your statement implies a deliberate choice to endorse the idea that I am not in a Reality Simulation. It would be more accurate to state that the sensory input I receive does not provide me with another choice but to exist from the perspective of living in the reality I experience. Similarly, it is not that I'm "happy to play the game" but am compelled by demonstrable objective consequences to operate within the reality I experience.

William: Given that is the case, would you have a problem accepting that other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation?

[bluegreenearth]

William: Given that is the case, would you have a problem accepting that other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation?

It would depend on whether there is a way for me to distinguish between people who do experience alternate realities and people who mistakenly believe they experience alternate realities.

[William]

William: Given that is the case, would you have a problem accepting that other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation?

It would depend on whether there was a way for me to distinguish between people who do experience alternate realities and people who mistakenly believe they experience alternate realities.

William: Please explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities.

[bluegreenearth]

William: Please explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities.

I was hoping you would describe that process for me if one exists. I am currently unaware of a way to determine if people have experienced an alternate reality or merely mistakenly believe they've experienced an alternate reality. As such, I have no justifiable reason to accept the claim and must remain agnostic until such a time that it becomes possible to distinguish between an experience of an alternate reality and a mistaken belief of having experienced an alternate reality.

[William]

William: Please explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities.

I was hoping you would describe that process for me if one exists. I am currently unaware of a way to determine if people have experienced an alternate reality or merely mistakenly believe they've experienced an alternate reality. As such, I have no justifiable reason to accept the claim and must remain agnostic until such a time that it becomes possible to distinguish between an experience of an alternate reality and a mistaken belief of having experienced an alternate reality.

William: Just to recap then.

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

2: You do not know if the experience of self you are currently having is within a simulated universe or not.

3: Until you are able to experience for your self, Alternate Realities, you feel the only honest thing open to you is to accept that you exist within the only Reality which exists that you can experience.

4: When asked if you allow for the same for other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation, you answer;

"It would depend on whether there is a way for me to distinguish between people who do experience alternate realities and people who mistakenly believe they experience alternate realities."

5: When asked to explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities, you answer that you would hope to get that information from others, and until you do, you cannot justify to your self why they should be given the same criteria as you give your self.

Does this sum up what you are saying?

[bluegreenearth]

William: Just to recap then.

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

2: You do not know if the experience of self you are currently having is within a simulated universe or not.

3: Until you are able to experience for your self, Alternate Realities, you feel the only honest thing open to you is to accept that you exist within the only Reality which exists that you can experience.

4: When asked if you allow for the same for other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation, you answer;

"It would depend on whether there is a way for me to distinguish between people who do experience alternate realities and people who mistakenly believe they experience alternate realities."

5: When asked to explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities, you answer that you would hope to get that information from others, and until you do, you cannot justify to your self why they should be given the same criteria as you give your self.

Does this sum up what you are saying?

I didn't notice the nuance of question 4 the first time you asked but recognize it now that it is in this context. The question presumes other people do experience other realities rather than mistakenly believe they've experienced other realities. My response was asking you to justify that presumption.

As for 5, once again, the nuance was not obvious the first time you asked. In its current context, my response is asking you if there is some way I could distinguish between an experience of an alternate reality and having a mistaken belief that I experienced an alternate reality in order to know if other people could experience an alternate reality. If there is no way for me to distinguish between those two options, then why should I accept that other people are able to make that distinction?

[William]

William: Just to recap then.

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

2: You do not know if the experience of self you are currently having is within a simulated universe or not.

3: Until you are able to experience for your self, Alternate Realities, you feel the only honest thing open to you is to accept that you exist within the only Reality which exists that you can experience.

4: When asked if you allow for the same for other people who do experience alternate realities, have another choice and exist from the perspective of accepting the realities they experience as equally compelled to operate with what such experiences show them, even being that it shows them they exist within a Reality Simulation, you answer;

"It would depend on whether there is a way for me to distinguish between people who do experience alternate realities and people who mistakenly believe they experience alternate realities."

5: When asked to explain how you go about deciding between people who 'mistakenly believe' that they experience alternate realities and those who do experience alternate realities, you answer that you would hope to get that information from others, and until you do, you cannot justify to your self why they should be given the same criteria as you give your self.

Does this sum up what you are saying?

I didn't notice the nuance of question 4 the first time you asked but recognize it now that it is in this context. The question presumes other people do experience other realities rather than mistakenly believe they've experienced other realities. My response was asking you to justify that presumption.

As for 5, once again, the nuance was not obvious the first time you asked. In its current context, my response is asking you if there is some way I could distinguish between an experience of an alternate reality and having a mistaken belief that I experienced an alternate reality in order to know if other people could experience an alternate reality. If there is no way for me to distinguish between those two options, then why should I accept that other people are able to make that distinction?

William: Given that you don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation and accept the logical possibility of either position, why should you reject that other people would have alternate experiences?
Given that you don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation and accept the logical possibility of either position why should you assume that people 'have a mistaken belief' that they have experienced or do experience alternate realities?

[bluegreenearth]

William: Given that you don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation and accept the logical possibility of either position, why should you reject that other people would have alternate experiences?
Given that you don't claim to know if we do or do not live within a creation and accept the logical possibility of either position why should you assume that people 'have a mistaken belief' that they have experienced or do experience alternate realities?

I don't reject or endorse either of those claims. I'm agnostic about the claim that people can experience alternate realities. I'm also agnostic about the claim that all people who report they've experienced alternate realities are mistaken in that belief. Although, it is my understanding that some beliefs about experiences of alternate realities are falsifiable and have been falsified. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know if all such beliefs are falsifiable. So, I remain agnostic to those cases where claims about people experiencing alternate realities are not demonstrably true or false.