Epistemology

[Blastcat]

!

When I debate theists or other kinds of believers... I often ask.. "What do you mean when you say you "know" God?"

What is belief, what is knowledge, what is faith, and so on?

Wouldn't it be a good thing to agree on definitions BEFORE talking about knowledge and belief and so on? I would love to hear from different people on how they view religious compared to secular kinds of knowledge, and why they are described so often by apologists as being different. Secular knowledge doesn't seem to be the same as religious knowledge for these people, but yet, we both use the same word, apparently in two different ways causing lots of confusion.

So, the question for debate is...

What IS this thing we call knowledge?

[4gold]

I shouldn't try to derail my very own thread, but since "brute facts" are talking about kinds of things that we KNOW... I can think of one "brute fact" that I think is rather brutish.. and that is reality itself. I don't know, for example, that I am not a mind in a vat. I can't think of how I could prove to anyone that reality exists for real. It's just what I would call a brute fact.. unexplained, and unexplainable.

Very interesting to me! I've never "met" a realist atheist/skeptic...one that believes reality is, well, real. Every philosophical debate I've had with non-theists have been with nominalists or conceptualists. They deny, like Dawkins, Tyson, Dennett, Harris, etc., that objective reality exists. Perhaps this thread will go further into this.

As far as brute facts go, that is definitely a key part of epistemology. And I do not deny that epistemological brute facts exist (for example, the lightning caused the forest fire). I just deny that metaphysical brute facts exist -- that there are facts where even in principle, no explanation exists for those facts. Every epistemological fact must have a metaphysical explanation, in my opinion. In other words, I believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

1. Explanatory facts are always more plausible than brute facts
2. Brute facts are only posited when facts cannot be explained
3. It's always possible for facts to be explained...
4. Therefore, brute facts cannot be posited.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

There are plenty of idealists around, persons who believe that the universe exists no place but in our minds. Time, space, causality, the whole shebang, are all ways our minds interpret reality, which have nothing to do with its actual nature, which cannot be known.
However, if so, why don't we just look at the back of our heads to see what the other side of the moon looks like? Why have to go up there? Also, it sure seems most unfortunate we are equipped to see things that aren't really there.

[Talishi]

[There are plenty of idealists around, persons who believe that the universe exists no place but in our minds. Time, space, causality, the whole shebang, are all ways our minds interpret reality, which have nothing to do with its actual nature, which cannot be known.

When the actual nature of a thing cannot be known, only the apparent nature, we basically promote the apparent nature of the thing to its actual nature by default, being practical creatures.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by hoghead1]

!

[center]Are theologians knowing God or ideas about God?[/center]

Yes, all knowledge involves some real degree of speculation. That is especially true of science, a point many forget.

If we don't pretend to know something absolutely, we have to admit to some degree of speculation. Correct. I have to speculate that reality is real, for example. I don't think that you would say that science is ONLY speculation, but also OBSERVATION. What is theology OBSERVING?

We have a very limited window into the distant past and into the distant reaches of the universe. Hence, speculation is essential. Much science deals in degrees of probability of a hypothesis being correct, not in terms of absolute proof or absolute truth.

I don't think that science pretends to know anything absolutely.
So, I would say that proper science only CAN deal in probabilities.

You asked what theologians know about God. In classical theism, the reigning doctrine of God in the West, it was assumed that God is wholly immutable, without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly simple, wholly independent often universe.

You say that these are assumptions.
I asked what they know.

So our knowledge of God is never a finished product. We are continually learning new things. The emphasis is upon rethinking and updating our model of picture of God as he or she is in his or her own nature.

Knowledge of God.

I think we agree that theology and science use speculation.
Scientists start sometimes with a speculation and test it in the world, to see if it's real. I don't know what theologians do to test their speculations other than test for some kind of religious internal consistency.

Perhaps we should consider what we both mean by "knowledge".
I don't know what you mean by "knowledge of God".

It seems to be something like "new and better ideas about the concept called God. "
But does theology go BEYOND ideas about God?