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]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

I would agree with your conclusion. To use Christian terminology, secular atheists use "knowledge" from general revelation -- evidence that is available to everyone. Christians, specifically, refer to "knowing" God in a special revelation sense -- knowledge that is otherwise impossible to know without divine revelation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by 4gold]

I would agree with your conclusion. To use Christian terminology, secular atheists use "knowledge" from general revelation -- evidence that is available to everyone. Christians, specifically, refer to "knowing" God in a special revelation sense -- knowledge that is otherwise impossible to know without divine revelation.

Thanks.. I will look up the term "general revelation".
That seems to be very useful.

So, general vs. divine revelation.

I would SUPPOSE that even theists agree about general revelations.. like the wind blows and the birds fly and so on.

What theists do NOT agree on is what divine revelation is real... they disagree about those. I am afraid that although I might have posted this question in the correct forum, it seems to be a very UNPOPULAR one.. philosophy.. yek.

Epistemology even yekier.

Religious epistemology yekiest.... ?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 3 by Blastcat]

Traditionally, it was assumed there is a general revelation of God or "natural light." This would amount to knowledge of God gained through exploring nature. One major aspect of general revelation would be providing proofs for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument. it was assumed that general revelation was not enough to save you, though enough to condemn you, a point Calvin stressed. Special revelation referred to largely supernatural events, such as God speaking to Moses, the Resurrection, etc. It was assumed that such events had to be believed in, in order to be saved. However, this distinction has been questioned in modern-day theology.

I don't know about other her: but for my part, I am very interested in questions about epistemology and philosophy. The field of theology is the crossroad where religion and philosophy meet and link up.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by hoghead1]

!

[center]Is religious epistemology merely speculation?[/center]

Traditionally, it was assumed there is a general revelation of God or "natural light." This would amount to knowledge of God gained through exploring nature. One major aspect of general revelation would be providing proofs for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument. it was assumed that general revelation was not enough to save you, though enough to condemn you, a point Calvin stressed. Special revelation referred to largely supernatural events, such as God speaking to Moses, the Resurrection, etc. It was assumed that such events had to be believed in, in order to be saved. However, this distinction has been questioned in modern-day theology.

I don't know about other her: but for my part, I am very interested in questions about epistemology and philosophy. The field of theology is the crossroad where religion and philosophy meet and link up.

But what you just mentioned... all of the above is speculation, right?
Epistemology deals with KNOWLEDGE.. is speculation knowledge?

What do theologians KNOW about the god they believe in?

[4gold]

Thanks.. I will look up the term "general revelation".
That seems to be very useful.

So, general vs. divine revelation.

I would SUPPOSE that even theists agree about general revelations.. like the wind blows and the birds fly and so on.

What theists do NOT agree on is what divine revelation is real... they disagree about those.

That is correct. General revelation is what we all observe (doesn't mean we always agree).

Special revelation is dicey, at best. Christians agree the Bible is special revelation, but argue as to what it means.

In general, special revelation is grounded in faith and general revelation is grounded in brute facts (if brute facts exist -- I tend to argue they do not).

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by 4gold]

That is correct. General revelation is what we all observe (doesn't mean we always agree).

Special revelation is dicey, at best. Christians agree the Bible is special revelation, but argue as to what it means.

In general, special revelation is grounded in faith and general revelation is grounded in brute facts (if brute facts exist -- I tend to argue they do not).

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.

I mean.. I can't THINK ... but I also don't really believe that we can know anything absolutely. So, maybe even reality itself can be proved. With a red pill, perhaps.

But I read a tiny bit about general revelation.. and it said that even looking at nature leads to God. How they make that connection.. they didn't say at Wikipedia.

Maybe there isn't a way to connect nature and God... In any case... the creationists sure like to point to nature and... "see" the fingerprint of God.. or whatnot.

They have the ability to SEE it.. and I have not.
I must be a sinner who likes his sin too much or something to see gods.

Maybe if I believed in God I might see God.

But then, as a skeptic, I would have to see god to believe in god to see god.

[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.

So as examples, if a Christian were to tell me, "God exists. That's just a fact", well, I'd have a problem with that. But if a Christian were to tell me, "God's existence is necessary", then I would agree.

Or on the flip side, if an atheist were to tell me, "It's a fact that the laws of nature explain why we exist", I have a problem with that. But if an atheist were to say, "

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

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

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. In post-modern theology, this model has been criticized for representing a lopsided view of divine perfection that overlooks the importance of dynamic, contingent aspects of God, as I described in earlier emails. Since the 40's, it has been said of most fields, and this especially includes theology, that there is no orthodoxy, that everything is up for grabs. In many ways that is true. In post-modern theology, the emphasis is upon a healthy skepticism for tradition, creativity, and personal experience over dogma. In systematic theology, the goal is to interrelate theology with other major disciplines, such as science, work in a partnership with them. 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.

[bluethread]

But then, as a skeptic, I would have to see god to believe in god to see god.

It is kind of like, "I think, therefore I am . . ." I think,

I see patterns in things. Are those patterns really there or am I just making them up? Some of those patterns, I'll call them "people", tell me that they see patterns also. Some also say unless there is a way for them to see those patterns over and over again the same way I do, they do not exist. However, if I am making those "people" up, can't I also be making those patterns such that they see some of those patterns over and over again the same way I do. At this point in the discussion I have perceived one "person" that refuses to even discuss it any further. I hope those patterns that appear on what I perceive as "a flat surface" and include the pattern "blastcat" will not stop in the same way. Because these patterns that I see are the basis for the things I "know", even if some "people" do not accept those things, because they claim they can not see them the same way over and over again.