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?

[Purple Knight]

I actually think we should reverse the burden of proof, and make it up to atheists to find a contradiction in belief structures.

Or at very least, we should apply this reversed burden of proof to behavioural guidelines which are religious in nature.

The reason is because of this video, and what the speaker explains about implicit versus explicit belief systems.



Whatever else he says (there's a reason the video is not on YouTube) he's completely correct about implicit versus explicit belief systems.

It's rather long but IMO it bears a listen.

The reason I don't worry so much about religious people not applying equal levels of trust to other peoples' belief systems is linked to this. Perhaps survival strategy A works fine for Group A, but what's good for the goose ends up being bad for the gander, for any number of reasons. What works in a hot climate may be unnecessary or bad for a cold one. (Don't eat shellfish, which the speaker starts on, is a great example.)

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

“Justify their beliefs among themselves� and “reinforce a preferred belief� seem to account for much of what we see in these debates. Theists appear to be accustomed to talking among themselves and attending weekly reinforcement meetings – then attempt to apply the same approaches here; as though those who read their posts will accept claims, stories, and arguments that work so well when preaching to the choir.

Arguments / claims / stories that may work well in church or in Holy Huddle sub-forum, do not fare well in C&A where no religious belief or literature is given preferential treatment – and where the Bible cannot be used as proof of truth.

Deprived to the 'Ace' card (“the Bible proves it�), there is little left to substantiate claims and stories fundamental to the religion – which are shot full of holes repeatedly. Genesis cannot be supported as truthful and accurate; or as anything more than folklore, myth, legend, or fabrication and fantasy. The gospels cannot be credibly attributed to the famous names attached so writers are unknown. None can be shown to be eyewitness to the events and conversations they describe – particularly since they were evidently written decades or generations after the supposed events.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

In many ways, their worldview is remarkably similar to that of fictional people trapped in the Matrix. When you aren't aware of being in the Matrix, the available facts and evidence for your perceived reality are remarkably convincing. For those of us who've noticed the subtle but numerous glitches in their Matrix, the theist's perception of reality is as obviously manufactured as a stack of cheap plastic solo cups. Granted, I know from experience that when a cheap plastic solo cup is your idea of fine china, the backyard BBQ seems like a black tie affair. As a former Christian, I'm very much aware of how difficult it is to swallow the "red pill" of objective reality. I can understand how the awareness of many theists may be constrained and limited to the comfortable and familiar surroundings of an elaborately decorated cage because I was once blissfully trapped in there with them. However, I was fortunate enough to have discovered where the application of logic, reason, and intellectual honesty illuminated an exit that was hidden in plain sight the entire time. Upon my escape from that pious prison, a pragmatic epistemology has since led me to an amazing and wondrous objective reality that provides me with knowledge which actually serves to reliably inform my decisions. I can only hope that other victims of theocratic manipulation manage to find their way to a liberating life of freethought and secular humanism.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 4 by bluegreenearth]

Perhaps some who read here will consider looking for the 'exit hidden in plain sight' from the 'elaborately decorated cage' and escape ' 'familiar surroundings' into the world of reality.

Seventy-nine views of this thread in a little over one day. Even fervent believers can see the light – as many Ex-Christian members indicate.

[The Tanager]

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?

I don't think there is a good justification for failing to consistently apply an established epistemology.

An epistemology that serves to support multiple competing or contradictory beliefs does not seem reliable to me.

Are you saying that only theists can have an inconsistent epistemology like this? Or that only theists do have an inconsistent epistemology? If not, why focus on theists who do?

[bluegreenearth]

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?

I don't think there is a good justification for failing to consistently apply an established epistemology.

An epistemology that serves to support multiple competing or contradictory beliefs does not seem reliable to me.

Are you saying that only theists can have an inconsistent epistemology like this? Or that only theists do have an inconsistent epistemology? If not, why focus on theists who do?

No, theists are probably not the only people who regularly fail to consistently apply their epistemology. However, in my experience, that failure is just more transparent in many theists than other people. The reason I'm focusing on theists is because this is a Christianity and Apologetics thread.

[William]

William: As a Christian, I am not guilty of the charges laid out in the OP and subsequent non-theist posts.

The OP questions appear to come from a subconscious need to feel validated in ones own position and non-theist world view - by pointing out flaws...flaws which we need to be reminded, are active in those non-theist world views as well...

Whether a case of 'pot calling kettle black' or simply the inability to discern clearly due to the 'speck in one's eye', matters not a wink.

[bluegreenearth]

William: As a Christian, I am not guilty of the charges laid out in the OP and subsequent non-theist posts.

The OP questions appear to come from a subconscious need to feel validated in ones own position and non-theist world view - by pointing out flaws...flaws which we need to be reminded, are active in those non-theist world views as well...

Whether a case of 'pot calling kettle black' or simply the inability to discern clearly due to the 'speck in one's eye', matters not a wink.

Please demonstrate where I've failed to apply my epistemology consistently. I'm not suggesting it would be impossible for me to have unintentionally utilized an inconsistent epistemology, but I'm not aware of having done so in the example you've displayed.

[The Tanager]

No, theists are probably not the only people who regularly fail to consistently apply their epistemology. However, in my experience, that failure is just more transparent in many theists than other people. The reason I'm focusing on theists is because this is a Christianity and Apologetics thread.

Okay. Are you saying that theism or Christian theism is obviously inconsistent? Or just that some theists or some Christian theists are inconsistent?

Are you expecting theists or Christian theists to say "yes, I'm inconsistent and that's a good thing"? I would guess that anyone responding (theist and non-theist) will think they are (at least usually) consistent in applying their epistemology and will agree that there is no rational justification for being inconsistent.

Are you asking how do inconsistent people not see their inconsistency?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on the point(s) you are wanting to discuss.