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?

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: Please explain how one can have confirmation bias and also be agnostic in regard to the possibility we exist within a Reality Simulation.

[William]

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.

William: Please explain why you think that accepting the logical possibility of either position, is not endorsing the logical possibility of both?

[bluegreenearth]

William: Please explain how one can have confirmation bias and also be agnostic in regard to the possibility we exist within a Reality Simulation.

I can identify where logic and intellectual honesty dictates that I be agnostic about the claim but recognize where confirmation bias would try to influence me to believe the claim is most likely false.

[bluegreenearth]

William: Please explain why you think that accepting the logical possibility of either position, is not endorsing the logical possibility of both?

I understand the word "accept" to mean "acknowledge" in the context of that statement. I intended for the word "endorse" to mean "have a personal preference for" in the context of my statement. As such, to acknowledge the logical possibility of either position is not equivalent to having a personal preference for the logical possibility of both. One statement describes a position based on logic and the other describes a position based on an emotional appeal.

[William]

William: Please explain why you think that accepting the logical possibility of either position, is not endorsing the logical possibility of both?

I understand the word "accept" to mean "acknowledge" in the context of that statement. I intended for the word "endorse" to mean "have a personal preference for" in the context of my statement. As such, to acknowledge the logical possibility of either position is not equivalent to having a personal preference for the logical possibility of both. One statement describes a position based on logic and the other describes a position based on an emotional appeal.

William: Would you agree that a blind person who is told that a Galaxy exists, is being intellectually honest in not believing galaxies exist, on the grounds that he/she cannot verify it for themselves?

[bluegreenearth]

William: Would you agree that a blind person who is told that a Galaxy exists, is being intellectually honest in not believing galaxies exist, on the grounds that he/she cannot verify it for themselves?

Your example is not properly analogous to justify believing someone who claims to have experienced an alternate reality. I'll grant that there is an element of trust being extended by the blind person to the scientists claiming a particular galaxy exists, but the application of trust in this case is reasonably justifiable. The basic laws of physics and math, apart from the speed of light, that are at the foundation of the claim can be directly experienced and understood by a blind person. As such, a blind person could extrapolate from an understanding of those physical and mathematical laws whether the claim about the existence of a particular galaxy is reasonable to believe or not. Nothing analogous exists for me or anyone else who doesn't experience an alternate reality. Therefore, I have no justifiable reason to reject or endorse the claim that someone has experienced an alternate reality in the way you've defined it.

[William]

William: Would you agree that a blind person who is told that a Galaxy exists, is being intellectually honest in not believing galaxies exist, on the grounds that he/she cannot verify it for themselves?

Your example is not properly analogous to justify believing someone who claims to have experienced an alternate reality. I'll grant that there is an element of trust being extended by the blind person to the scientists claiming a particular galaxy exists, but the application of trust in this case is reasonably justifiable. The basic laws of physics and math, apart from the speed of light, that are at the foundation of the claim can be directly experienced and understood by a blind person. As such, a blind person could extrapolate from an understanding of those physical and mathematical laws whether the claim about the existence of a particular galaxy is reasonable to believe or not. Nothing analogous exists for me or anyone else who doesn't experience an alternate reality. Therefore, I have no justifiable reason to reject or endorse the claim that someone has experienced an alternate reality in the way you've defined it.

William: I have not defined alternate experience in any way other than it is alternate.
Going along with your argument, the blind person should then be able to understand that it is more likely that we exist within a Simulated Reality than not, because of the existence of mathematical laws. Human explanations of what has been discovered, not something humans themselves invented.

Obviously the idea is that a simulated universe should be able to be shown to have coding throughout, which it does. It can be explained through decoding (mathematics) and the simplest explanation would thus be that we exist with a Creation/Reality Simulation rather than we do not.

[bluegreenearth]

William: I have not defined alternate experience in any way other than it is alternate.
Going along with your argument, the blind person should then be able to understand that it is more likely that we exist within a Simulated Reality than not, because of the existence of mathematical laws. Human explanations of what has been discovered, not something humans themselves invented.

Obviously the idea is that a simulated universe should be able to be shown to have coding throughout, which it does. It can be explained through decoding (mathematics) and the simplest explanation would thus be that we exist with a Creation/Reality Simulation rather than we do not.

I will respond to this objection but must first remind you that the topic of this thread is about whether an epistemology is being applied consistently or inconsistently. I've been more than fair in entertaining the evaluation of your claim but must ask that you keep the focus of this discussion on epistemology. If you want to debate people regarding your "Reality Simulation" claim, then please start a new thread with that topic.

I understand math to be an imperfect abstract representation of the reality I experience in the same way that the word "reality" is an abstract representation of the reality I experience. Whether the reality I am experiencing is a physical universe or a simulation is irrelevant to the functionality of mathematics (or any other language). Furthermore, because mathematics is not reality but an imperfect abstract representation of reality, it is not accurate to refer to mathematical explanations as discoveries. Otherwise, you would equally have to argue that the word "reality" was discovered rather than invented. At best, mathematics is a tool that can help us discover new things about the reality it represents just like words are tools that help us communicate the reality they are representing.

Now, with all due respect, I'm ready to move on from your Reality Simulation claim and return to the topic of this thread.

[William]

William: I have not defined alternate experience in any way other than it is alternate.
Going along with your argument, the blind person should then be able to understand that it is more likely that we exist within a Simulated Reality than not, because of the existence of mathematical laws. Human explanations of what has been discovered, not something humans themselves invented.

Obviously the idea is that a simulated universe should be able to be shown to have coding throughout, which it does. It can be explained through decoding (mathematics) and the simplest explanation would thus be that we exist with a Creation/Reality Simulation rather than we do not.

I will respond to this objection but must first remind you that the topic of this thread is about whether an epistemology is being applied consistently or inconsistently. I've been more than fair in entertaining the evaluation of your claim but must ask that you keep the focus of this discussion on epistemology. If you want to debate people regarding your "Reality Simulation" claim, then please start a new thread with that topic.

William: What do you think of an epistemology which is consistently inconsistent.
I remind you that you asked, so I am testing your theory of knowledge with regard to its methods, validity, and scope in relation to the theory of a simulated universe, to see what consistency is involved and whether the distinction between justified belief and opinion can be ascertained.

As you say, you have simply been entertaining the evaluation of - what you regard as my 'claim'...perhaps while awaiting more serious contributions to this thread...why waste a good epistemology on the non-falsifiable either way?

In that, I am satisfied that your particular epistemology is atheist-based, rather than agnostic-based.

Go well.

[bluegreenearth]

William: What do you think of an epistemology which is consistently inconsistent.
I remind you that you asked, so I am testing your theory of knowledge with regard to its methods, validity, and scope in relation to the theory of a simulated universe, to see what consistency is involved and whether the distinction between justified belief and opinion can be ascertained.

As you say, you have simply been entertaining the evaluation of - what you regard as my 'claim'...perhaps while awaiting more serious contributions to this thread...why waste a good epistemology on the non-falsifiable either way?

Go well.

It is the application of an epistemology that can be consistent or inconsistent. To consistently apply an epistemology inconsistently is an unreliable strategy for acquiring knowledge.

I recognize where some of your earlier posts could be relevant to the thread topic, but the post about mathematics and codes was just another attempt at defending your "Reality Simulation" claim. If you are evaluating whether I consistently apply my epistemology or not, then you should be comparing the epistemology I used to evaluate the truth value of a specified claim with the epistemology process I used to evaluate the truth value of a different specified claim. If there is an inconsistency between those two methods for acquiring knowledge, then I would like that discrepancy to be identified in order that the appropriate corrections could be made. However, if those two methods for acquiring knowledge are consistent with each other, then you should have no reason to object regardless of whether you agree with my epistemology or not. It is fine if you do not agree with my epistemology, but you will have observed that I at least applied it consistently to both specified claims.