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 God’s 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 I’ve 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?

[bluegreenearth]

But you see, it can also been used as evidence, that we have very good evidence to suggest this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean, this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus. Since we have this evidence, this would also be evidence, that this author would have surely known the other Apostles personally, and conversed with them, just as Paul did. We also know there were many others besides the Apostles who were said to have witnessed the Jesus alive after death. Therefore, since we have very good evidence this author may have been a very close associate with Paul, and the other Apostles, then he very well could have been numbered among those who were said to have witnessed Jesus alive after death.

Of course, none of this would in any way whatsoever demonstrate this author would have been a witness. Rather, this would simply be facts, and evidence which can be used. In the same way, the author not mentioning that he would have been a witness, does not in any way demonstrate he would not have been, but it can be used as evidence.

I'm confused...

I thought the only things you knew to be a demonstrable fact in this case was that the author wrote a letter addressed to a "Theophilus" where he refers to people who claimed they witnessed a resurrection. What demonstrates any of those other claims from your comments above to be facts? Also, it will help provide some clarity if you would please describe the epistemological criteria you use to determine what constitutes "evidence."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 159 by bluegreenearth]

According to my epistemological criteria for what constitutes a fact, the inherent logical absurdity entailed in the notion that this particular author was one of the eyewitnesses is a sufficient enough demonstration to conclude he wasn't an eyewitness.

You continue to avoid the question? Can you demonstrate this author would not have been a witness to Jesus alive, after death? Again, the answer would be, NO! You see, the question is not, "has it been demonstrated in your own mind"? It also is not, what you would consider to be absurd explanations.

The fact of the matter would be, I do not happened to believe this author would have been a witness to Jesus alive after death, and I have certain reasons to believe this, but I cannot demonstrate this to be a fact. The point is, I continue to acknowledge the difference between those facts, which can be demonstrated, as opposed to my opinions which I cannot demonstrate to be facts, while there seem to be others who struggle with understanding the difference.

However, if new evidence were provided to resolve the logical absurdity inherent to the possibility of this author being an eyewitness, intellectual honesty would compel me to reconsider my position in this particular case.

My friend, if it were a demonstrable fact, that this author would not have been a witness, there could not possibly be any sort of new evidence. As an example, it is a demonstrable fact that we have a resurrection recorded in at least 4 different writings. There is not going to be any new evidence, which will change this from being a fact. Of course, there may be new evidence which may change my opinion concerning this fact, but this fact, will remain to be a fact. The point is, the only thing that could change would be your opinion, that it would be a "logical absurdity".

In the mean time, when I apply this epistemological criteria consistently, it does not produce competing or contradictory fact claims as far as I have been able to determine.

The problem seems to be, you have trouble identifying those things which you can demonstrate to be facts, as opposed to those things which have not been demonstrated to be facts.

Nevertheless, in the interest of diplomacy, I'll operate in accordance with your epistemological criteria for this analysis. We shall, for the sake of argument, presume the logically absurd possibility that the author could have also been an eyewitness.

Here is a good example. You make this statement as if it would be a "logical absurdity" when you cannot demonstrate this to be the case. We have certain evidence this author would have been alive at the time. We have certain evidence that he would have traveled with Paul, which gives us evidence, on top of other evidence we have, that this author would have known the Apostles personally. We have it reported that there were many others who would have seen Jesus alive after death, and it is a "logical absurdity" to believe this author would have been one of those witnesses, when the only evidence you seem to be supplying would be he does not mention this in a personal letter addressed to someone he clearly was familiar with? This certainly does not follow, especially when there would be other possible explanations as to why he would not, mention this.

[Realworldjack]

But you see, it can also been used as evidence, that we have very good evidence to suggest this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean, this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus. Since we have this evidence, this would also be evidence, that this author would have surely known the other Apostles personally, and conversed with them, just as Paul did. We also know there were many others besides the Apostles who were said to have witnessed the Jesus alive after death. Therefore, since we have very good evidence this author may have been a very close associate with Paul, and the other Apostles, then he very well could have been numbered among those who were said to have witnessed Jesus alive after death.

Of course, none of this would in any way whatsoever demonstrate this author would have been a witness. Rather, this would simply be facts, and evidence which can be used. In the same way, the author not mentioning that he would have been a witness, does not in any way demonstrate he would not have been, but it can be used as evidence.

I'm confused...

I thought the only things you knew to be a demonstrable fact in this case was that the author wrote a letter addressed to a "Theophilus" where he refers to people who claimed they witnessed a resurrection. What demonstrates any of those other claims from your comments above to be facts? Also, it will help provide some clarity if you would please describe the epistemological criteria you use to determine what constitutes "evidence."

I thought the only things you knew to be a demonstrable fact in this case was that the author wrote a letter addressed to a "Theophilus" where he refers to people who claimed they witnessed a resurrection.

Where have I ever said such a thing?

What demonstrates any of those other claims from your comments above to be facts?

Let's go through what I say to determine.

we have very good evidence to suggest this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul

This would be a fact, and I have supplied this evidence many times, so unless you insist I will not do it here. Read carefully. Evidence, does not demonstrate, or prove a case, but can be used in support.

which would mean, this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus.

This would be a fact. In other words, if this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul, as the evidence suggests, then he would had to have been alive in some form, during the life of Jesus.

Since we have this evidence, this would also be evidence, that this author would have surely known the other Apostles personally, and conversed with them, just as Paul did.

Here, I should have said, "this author "COULD have" instead of "WOULD have". In other words, what I am saying is, "if this author would have traveled with Paul, as the evidence seems to suggest, then surely he would have known, and conversed with the Apostles, as well, since we know Paul would have known, and conversed with them. Moreover, we have other evidence as well, which would point to the idea this author may have in fact known the Apostles.

So then, to be clear, I am not insisting that this author would have known the Apostles, but rather that we have evidence that would certainly suggest that he very well could have. I believe this author would have known the Apostles on a personal basis, but I also know this would not be something that I would be able to demonstrate, which seems to be the difference between us.

We also know there were many others besides the Apostles who were said to have witnessed the Jesus alive after death.

This would be a fact. Notice carefully that I am not saying that, "it would be a fact that there would have been many others who witnessed Jesus alive after death", but rather that, "there were many others who were SAID to have witnessed this".

Therefore, since we have very good evidence this author may have been a very close associate with Paul, and the other Apostles, then he very well could have been numbered among those who were said to have witnessed Jesus alive after death.

This would be worded correctly, and would be a fact. In other words, I used, "may have", and "could have". The fact of the matter is, it has not in any way been demonstrated this author would not have been numbered among those who were said to have witnessed Jesus alive after death. Therefore, it is certainly possible that he may have been.

Of course, none of this would in any way whatsoever demonstrate this author would have been a witness.

This would be a fact.

Rather, this would simply be facts, and evidence which can be used.

This would be true. It would be a fact, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the travels of Paul. It would be a fact that there are those who are a lot closer in time than we are, some of which claim to have known the Apostles, who attest that Luke would have been the author of the letters to Theophilus. It is a fact this author begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to begin to focus on the actions of Paul, once Paul's journeys begin, and does not mention what the other Apostles may be doing, until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. It would be a fact that we have letters in which the author claims to be Paul, and he mentions the name Luke in 3 of these letters. It would be a fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus. ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest. It would be a fact that we have a letter in which the author claims to be Paul, which would have clearly been written while under arrest, and in this letter, he tells his audience, "only Luke is with me".

I could continue, but the fact of the matter is, all these things are facts which cannot be denied, and although they do not demonstrate the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, these are certainly facts, which can be used as evidence, in support of the idea.

In the same way, the author not mentioning that he would have been a witness, does not in any way demonstrate he would not have been, but it can be used as evidence.

This would be a fact. Simply because the author does not mention this, would in no way demonstrate that he would not have been a witness. However, the fact that he did not mention this, certainly can be used as evidence in order to support the idea that he may not have been.

It is really not difficult at all. There are certain things which can be demonstrated to be facts, while there are other things which may be possibilities, which have not at least as of yet, been demonstrated to be facts.

Also, it will help provide some clarity if you would please describe the epistemological criteria you use to determine what constitutes "evidence."

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Notice carefully here where the word, "indicating" is used, instead of "proving" or "demonstrating". Therefore, "evidence" would be, the available body of facts, or information, which can be used in support of a "belief or proposition" in order to "indicate" (not prove or demonstrate) the "belief or proposition" is true.

So then, "evidence" would be those facts, which "indicate" something would be true, while "proof", would be those things which demonstrate things to be facts.

Allow me to close with as example. If I were to give my son a curfew of midnight, and I were to get up in the morning and go out into the driveway in order to retrieve the morning paper, and the paper happen to be under the front wheel of the car he drove the night before, along with the fact that the paper could not have been delivered before 4:00 AM, I have evidence in order to support the idea that my son would have missed his curfew, and by at least 4 hours.

The paper being under his front tire, does not demonstrate my son would have missed his curfew, but it would certainly be a fact, and this fact, would be evidence I could use in order to "indicate" this would have been the case.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 162 by Realworldjack]

Your epistemology requires facts to be physically demonstrable, but the only thing that is physically demonstrable from this example is an anonymously written letter addressed to a "Theophilus." Technically, most of your other listed "facts" are nothing more than claims contained within that anonymously written letter and cannot be physically demonstrated to have historically occurred as described. For example, it is not a fact that the anonymous author of the letter was Paul's traveling companion because there is no way that claim can be physically demonstrated without a time machine. What is actually a fact, according to your own epistemological criteria, is that the anonymous author of this letter claimed to have received information from the Apostle Paul. Because the anonymous author's claim cannot be physically demonstrated, it does not meet your own epistemological criteria for it to qualify as a fact. Now, it would have been a fact that the anonymous author of the this letter had received information from the Apostle Paul if this claim were somehow physically demonstrable. However, because it is not physically demonstrable, it would be an inconsistent application of your epistemology to consider that claim to be a fact.

Of course, I honestly doubt this is how you intended for your epistemological criteria to be applied. Instead, you probably meant for it to include some deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. As such, did you abductively conclude that the anonymous author of this letter was the Apostle Paul's traveling companion because it was your most logical inference based on the available information? If not, what is your justification for concluding that claim was a fact?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 163 by bluegreenearth]

Your epistemology requires facts to be physically demonstrable

It has nothing to do with my "epistemology". Rather, it is simply a fact, that for something to be said to be a fact, it must be demonstrable.

but the only thing that is physically demonstrable from this example is an anonymously written letter addressed to a "Theophilus."

This is simply false, because there would be other things we can demonstrate to be facts, but I am not going to get into this at this time, because it would be long, and drawn out, and there is something here more important I would like to address.

Technically, most of your other listed "facts" are nothing more than claims contained within that anonymously written letter and cannot be physically demonstrated to have historically occurred as described.

No! Because I have not referred to these things as "listed facts". Rather, I have referred to them rightly, as "claims". Therefore, what I have said would be a fact is, we have the claims.

This is what I have been saying all along. In other words, we have this writing, along with other writings which make much the same claims, and it would be a fact that many of the events recorded cannot be demonstrated to be fact. However, since we have these writings, there would be a reason we have these writings, and we all can look at all the facts, and evidence involved, and come to an opinion of what we consider to be the best explanation to explain the facts we do have.

Of course some may look at these facts we have, and come to the opinion that the information we have in these letters would be false, while others may look at these same facts, and come to the opinion the information would be true, while still others may come to the opinion that we do not have enough information to form any sort of opinion, and all of these opinions would be fine, as long as they have some sort of facts, and evidence in support, but the fact of the matter would be, they would all simply be opinions, which cannot be demonstrated to be facts.

So then, while it would be a fact that, these claims "cannot be physically demonstrated to have historically occurred as described", it would also be a fact that they cannot be demonstrated to be false.

Now I would like to go through all of what you say, but for the sake of space, I think I can demonstrate my case, with your last comment.

Of course, I honestly doubt this is how you intended for your epistemological criteria to be applied. Instead, you probably meant for it to include some deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. As such, did you abductively conclude that the anonymous author of this letter was the Apostle Paul's traveling companion because it was your most logical inference based on the available information? If not, what is your justification for concluding that claim was a fact?

I can only imagine, that you are either transposing your epistemology upon me, or, you are not reading very carefully, because I have never once in our conversation here, claimed that the author of the letters to Theophilus, traveling with Paul would be a, fact. Rather, I have claimed, we have evidence, which would "indicate" that he would have, which is a far cry from claiming this to be a fact.

Moreover, I have never claimed that it would be a fact that this author would have witnessed Jesus alive after death, but have rather acknowledged this as a possibility. In fact, I happen to hold to the opinion that he would not have witnessed Jesus alive after death, based upon the evidence we have. However, I also acknowledge the fact that, this evidence does not in any way demonstrate this to be a fact, and therefore I do not refer to it as a fact, in the same I do not refer to the author of the letters to Theophilus traveling with Paul to be a fact, because I understand the difference between those things I can demonstrate to be facts, as opposed to my opinion of the facts, which I cannot demonstrate to be facts.

You on the other hand, certainly seem to insist that it would be a fact that this author would not have witnessed Jesus alive after death, and cannot in any way demonstrate this to be a fact.

So then, we have one who demonstrates the ability to distinguish between those things which can be demonstrated to be facts, as opposed to those things which would be possibilities, even when this may not help out their position, while we seem to have another, who has trouble determining the difference between what can be considered a fact, as opposed to a possibility.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 164 by Realworldjack]

To be honest, I wasn't satisfied with my response either as it was written while I was sleep deprived. I appreciate receiving your clarification as my last response was based on a misinterpretation.

So, if I've properly understood the explanation this time, you are using the fact that these claims exist as evidence to support other claims. Is that correct?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 164 by Realworldjack]

To be honest, I wasn't satisfied with my response either as it was written while I was sleep deprived. I appreciate receiving your clarification as my last response was based on a misinterpretation.

So, if I've properly understood the explanation this time, you are using the fact that these claims exist as evidence to support other claims. Is that correct?

Not exactly! Of course, one claim can be used in support of another claim, but it may not demonstrate either claim. As an example, we can read in the second letter to Theophilus, that Paul spent some 2 years under arrest. Then, as we turn our attention to the letters which have been attributed to Paul, we can see that 3 of these letters would have been written while Paul would have been under arrest.

So now, can we demonstrate that Paul would have ever been under arrest? Well, no we cannot say this would be a fact. What would be a fact would be, both the author of the second letter to Theophilus, and the letters attributed to Paul, support each other, and also support the idea that Paul would have been under arrest.

My point is, (although I may not word everything in the way I intend) I do not make a statement of fact, which I cannot demonstrate to be a fact.

Therefore, I can say, "it would be a fact that the second letter to Theophilus, and three of the letters which bear the name of Paul as being the author, agree that Paul would have spent time under arrest". Would this demonstrate that Paul would have spent time under arrest? Well no. But it would certainly be evidence one can use which would clearly "indicate" that Paul would have spent time under arrest.

Again, I attempt to be extremely careful to never state something to be a fact, which I cannot demonstrate to be a fact. However, I will admit that there are times when I may use to strong of terms, and I can see where there may be those who may misinterpret what I am attempting to say.

I apologize, because I have gotten carried away, and strayed from my main point which is, this site is filled with those of us who have differing opinions concerning the facts, and evidence surrounding the claims we have contained in the NT. Some of us seem to clearly understand the difference between those things we can demonstrate to be facts, as opposed to those things which would simply be our opinion of the facts and evidence involved, while there are others who seem to confuse the two, and actually claim their opinion to be fact, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

[bluegreenearth]

Some of us seem to clearly understand the difference between those things we can demonstrate to be facts, as opposed to those things which would simply be our opinion of the facts and evidence involved, while there are others who seem to confuse the two, and actually claim their opinion to be fact, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

So, would you agree that there are two separate questions being asked here?

1) What is a fact?
2) How can someone know what is a fact?

[Realworldjack]

Some of us seem to clearly understand the difference between those things we can demonstrate to be facts, as opposed to those things which would simply be our opinion of the facts and evidence involved, while there are others who seem to confuse the two, and actually claim their opinion to be fact, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

So, would you agree that there are two separate questions being asked here?

1) What is a fact?
2) How can someone know what is a fact?

I really do not see how one would have to ask these questions? A fact, is something which would be true. However, not all facts can be demonstrated to be facts. Therefore, one can only know something to be a fact, when it has been demonstrated to be a fact.

Again, there are those who understand this, and only refer to things as facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts, while there are others who seem to struggle with this, and can say things such as,

Furthermore, my epistemology and your epistemology conclude that a report written by someone who believed the claims of other people who believed a resurrection occurred do not demonstrate the resurrection to be a fact.

Because you see, even though it may be a fact, that the author of the letters to Theophilus, MAY have simply been, "someone who believed the claims of other people who believed a resurrection occurred", this has in no way been demonstrated to be a fact, and until this has been demonstrated, it is very possible, that this author MAY have witnessed what he reported.

[bluegreenearth]

I really do not see how one would have to asked these questions? A fact, is something which would be true.

Ontological Question: What is a fact?
Your answer: "A fact is something which would be true."

This is an ontological claim because it is attempting to describe something that exists in reality. There is nothing in this statement that justifies how anyone can know the ontological claim is true. So, we must ask the following epistemological question:

How can someone know what is a fact?

However, not all facts can be demonstrated to be facts. Therefore, one can only know something to be a fact, when it has been demonstrated to be a fact.

Epistemological Question: How can someone know what is a fact?
Your answer: "Therefore, one can only know something to be a fact, when it has been demonstrated to be a fact."

This is your epistemological criteria because it attempts to describe how someone can know something exists in reality. Of course, you are making no attempt to justify this statement. Instead of providing a justification for that statement, you are arbitrarily making it an axiom of your epistemology. This is a perfectly acceptable and necessary practice when constructing an epistemology. Otherwise, you would find yourself in an infinite regress of justifications.

So, to review:
1) Any statement that declares something to exist in reality is an ontological claim.
2) An ontological claim requires a justification for how someone can know it is true.
3) An epistemology describes how someone can acquire that knowledge.
4) The axioms of an epistemology are arbitrarily exempt from requiring a justification.