Christianity and Epistemology

[crow_t_robot]

To avoid confusion with terms, these are the definitions I am using:

epistemology
noun
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified true belief from opinion

agnostic
adj.
asserting the uncertainty of claims to knowledge

gnostic
adj.
asserting the certainty of claims to knowledge

knowledge
noun
Justified true belief

theism
noun
the belief that at least one deity exists

belief
noun
the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty

Anyone who holds gnostic (lowercase 'g') beliefs regarding theistic claims must necessarily have used epistemology to arrive at their conclusions (gnostic-theism is the most frequently espoused position on this site). Conversely, Someone who is agnostic towards theistic claims admits that they can not justify their belief with epistemology. I see nothing wrong with the latter position. Using only the limited information available to me, it seems more honest and sincere to admit "I don't know, but I believe" than to cherry-pick which epistemic approach to apply based on subject matter (i.e. "special pleading").

Because it is the process by which we validate and justify our belief, epistemology seems to be a more fundamental conception than belief itself. We must put the horse before the cart. Unfortunately, it is rarely discussed because it can raise uncomfortable questions for those with gilded beliefs built on weak foundations (i think a firm understanding of epistemology is necessary to develop a solid foundation for belief).

Every gnostic-theist must have utilized the epistemology learned during their lifetime to determine that theism is a "justified true belief."

I would like to hear how you've reconciled epistemology with theism and concluded that gnostic-theism is the truth. Also, what process did you use to determine that Christianity's tenets are objective truths? And those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, etc. are not? I consider myself an agnostic-theist: I am a believer in God, although I can not justify my belief with any consistent epistemology.

I don't mean to be insulting or combative by asking these questions and apologize if I come across that way. I just want to know how you guys use epistemology to justify your beliefs. It would help me tremendously if I could understand how to apply epistemic logic to my observations and conclude with certainty that Jesus died for my sins.

I am a lousy communicator, so here is a graphic to sum up my question. How can I (or "how did you") move from the blue into the yellow of this Euler diagram (assuming the proposition is "God, as described in the Bible, is real.")?



Thanks!

Also, I read the Bible and pray every day (so please, no knee-jerk suggestions like "Pray more." or "Read the Bible more." unless there is a specific book, chapter, or verse that will help). I read it frequently, but have yet to find justification for belief that withstands epistemic scrutiny.

The claims of inerrancy within the Bible itself (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverb 30:5, Psalm 12:6) seem to induce circular reasoning that has no epistemic value ("How do you know the Bible is inerrant?" "Because it says so." "Why should I believe what the Bible says?" "Because it is inerrant." and repeat). After all, the Koran (and many other religious texts) also claims inerrancy (Al-An'am 6:115, An-Najm 53:1-5). How did you use epistemology to find the truth about God?

 

[oldthennew]

my wife and I didn't 'find' The Truth, the Word, The Truth, The Word found us,
and so our Spiritual Journey began......

 

[Willie-T]

To avoid confusion with terms, these are the definitions I am using:



Anyone who holds gnostic (lowercase 'g') beliefs regarding theistic claims must necessarily have used epistemology to arrive at their conclusions (gnostic-theism is the most frequently espoused position on this site). Conversely, Someone who is agnostic towards theistic claims admits that they can not justify their belief with epistemology. I see nothing wrong with the latter position. Using only the limited information available to me, it seems more honest and sincere to admit "I don't know, but I believe" than to cherry-pick which epistemic approach to apply based on subject matter (i.e. "special pleading").

Because it is the process by which we validate and justify our belief, epistemology seems to be a more fundamental conception than belief itself. We must put the horse before the cart. Unfortunately, it is rarely discussed because it can raise uncomfortable questions for those with gilded beliefs built on weak foundations (i think a firm understanding of epistemology is necessary to develop a solid foundation for belief).

Every gnostic-theist must have utilized the epistemology learned during their lifetime to determine that theism is a "justified true belief."

I would like to hear how you've reconciled epistemology with theism and concluded that gnostic-theism is the truth. Also, what process did you use to determine that Christianity's tenets are objective truths? And those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, etc. are not? I consider myself an agnostic-theist: I am a believer in God, although I can not justify my belief with any consistent epistemology.

I don't mean to be insulting or combative by asking these questions and apologize if I come across that way. I just want to know how you guys use epistemology to justify your beliefs. It would help me tremendously if I could understand how to apply epistemic logic to my observations and conclude with certainty that Jesus died for my sins.

I am a lousy communicator, so here is a graphic to sum up my question. How can I (or "how did you") move from the blue into the yellow of this Euler diagram (assuming the proposition is "God, as described in the Bible, is real.")?

View attachment 141274

Thanks!

Also, I read the Bible and pray every day (so please, no knee-jerk suggestions like "Pray more." or "Read the Bible more." unless there is a specific book, chapter, or verse that will help). I read it frequently, but have yet to find justification for belief that withstands epistemic scrutiny.

The claims of inerrancy within the Bible itself (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverb 30:5, Psalm 12:6) seem to induce circular reasoning that has no epistemic value ("How do you know the Bible is inerrant?" "Because it says so." "Why should I believe what the Bible says?" "Because it is inerrant." and repeat). After all, the Koran (and many other religious texts) also claims inerrancy (Al-An'am 6:115, An-Najm 53:1-5). How did you use epistemology to find the truth about God?

But, interestingly, the Bible actually does not claim "inerrancy."

 

[dalconn]

Having your mind clouded with such words and terms as "epistemology" is the very thing that prevents you from seeing the simplicity of salvation. Faith is not intellectual.


2 Corinthians 11:3

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Every gnostic-theist must have utilized the epistemology learned during their lifetime to determine that theism is a "justified true belief."

I am a Christian not a gnostic-theist. And it was not what I had learned during my lifetime that determined my beliefs....it was falling into the loving arms the living risen Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[JimmieD]

Every gnostic-theist must have utilized the epistemology learned during their lifetime to determine that theism is a "justified true belief."

Epistemology has long abandoned that definition of knowledge. Knowledge can't be "justified true belief" because there are beliefs that can be justified and true but still can't be claims to knowledge. The most famous counter examples are from Edmund Gettier and are called "Gettier Problems."

Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[crossnote]

Having your mind clouded with such words and terms as "epistemology" is the very thing that prevents you from seeing the simplicity of salvation. Faith is not intellectual.


2 Corinthians 11:3

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The uneducated have been deceived just as much as the educated. (think superstitions)

 

[crow_t_robot]

my wife and I didn't 'find' The Truth, the Word, The Truth, The Word found us,
and so our Spiritual Journey began......

So is my seeking knowledge of God futile? Are my prayer and Biblical studies wasted time because The Truth has not found me? So many members here seem to be gnostic in their claims of Christianity, and I simply want to understand why.

But, interestingly, the Bible actually does not claim "inerrancy."

Fair enough, but I've been told otherwise by many Christians. Perhaps the interpretation of the verses I mentioned is a point of contention among believers. I don't know much about the subject. Wikipedia says: "Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching." Even if the Bible does not explicitly claim inerrancy, many believers do. And I still wonder: "How did they come to that knowledge?"

Having your mind clouded with such words and terms as "epistemology" is the very thing that prevents you from seeing the simplicity of salvation. Faith is not intellectual.


2 Corinthians 11:3


But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

How did you come to this conclusion without applying of some form of epistemic reasoning? If you somehow determined that "Faith is not intellectual" without using intellect (in the form of epistemology), it seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Without using our God-given abilities to reason, there is no way to differentiate between true and untrue religious claims.

I am a Christian not a gnostic-theist. And it was not what I had learned during my lifetime that determined my beliefs....it was falling into the loving arms the living risen Savior, Jesus Christ.

I understand that you are a Christian. But my question was about knowledge, not belief. It was about gnosticism, not theism.

Here is an example of a gnostic dichotomy: "One either has knowledge that it will rain tomorrow, or one does not have knowledge that it will rain tomorrow." This is a true-dichotomy, and there is no middle ground. You must be either in the former group (gnostic) or the latter group (agnostic). Personally, I don't know if it will rain tomorrow. I am an agnostic-precipitationist.

A theistic dichotomy would be more like: "One either believes that a God exists, or one does not believe that a God exists." You expressed your view on theism, but I was asking about about gnosticism.

Epistemology has long abandoned that definition of knowledge. Knowledge can't be "justified true belief" because there are beliefs that can be justified and true but still can't be claims to knowledge. The most famous counter examples are from Edmund Gettier and are called "Gettier Problems."

Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

1963 doesn't seem so long ago, but apparently you are correct. Although, modern epistemology hasn't so much abandoned the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge as amended it. Interesting read though.

It seems "Gettier Problems" can manifest in 2 different ways: Someone can have a "justified true belief" they perceive as knowledge, yet is not true. Or one can have a justified belief that is true, but not knowledge because it was derived from incorrect propositions.

Both of these cases can be easily reconciled with classical philosophy by defining knowledge as "justified true belief that does not depend on incorrect propositions." I have always taken this as implicit in the word "justified," but it seems to answer the semantic problem that Gettier asked.

Also, a number of philosophers and theologians have tackled the problem and redefined "knowledge" to accommodate Gettier's examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Other_responses_to_Gettier

But can solving this problem and redefining "knowledge" bring me any closer to gnostic Christianity? What definition do you use for knowledge? What is the framework of your epistemic reasoning, and how does it provide knowledge of Christianity? I would be interested to learn your perspective that.

The uneducated have been deceived just as much as the educated. (think superstitions)

Yes! this is exactly why epistemology is so important to me. It is our God-given capability to reason that allows us to evaluate the veracity of claims. Why not use it?

Thanks for the replies, some were very insightful. But I'm still waiting for my original question to be answered and not dodged. I don't like the smell of red herring.

 

[Angela53510]

I consider myself an intellectual. I like logic and knowledge. In fact, my faith journey sounds a bit like the question you are asking. But also not! With regards to other religions being true or not true, I studied them all with practitioners who were strong enough in their knowledge of their religions to be teachers of it.

All of them failed! Some because if obvious contradictions, others were incomplete. All of them required me to do various things to "earn" my way to God/into heaven/attain nirvana etc. etc. I knew I simply was not good enough to achieve those standards.

In a last ditch effort, I started reading the Bible. Sadly, I could not understand a thing about what it was saying. In other words, I could not appreciate it on any knowledge level. Meanwhile, a lot of people were telling me I needed to "know" Jesus Christ. I could not understand what that meant.

Then my future husband talked to me about the need for repentance. Then God spoke to me and told me he was my Saviour. I realized Jesus was the Saviour of the world. The change was instantaneous and amazing! My hunger to "know" God and his Word grew and grew. Then, about 10 years ago, I figured out which Bible verse really summed up in every way, shape and form my salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

It is my conclusion that we can come to know God from an epistemological viewpoint, but only after we are saved. It takes faith to believe, and God is the one who gives us faith to believe! While there are many evidences for our Christian beliefs, in the end we have to come to Christ by faith.

PS My father was a Ph.D university professor. I witnessed to him for 31 years, but he could not overcome his need for faith to be knowledge based. His heart started failing, and he almost died in the hospital. My husband and I were able to share Christ and pray with him. He prayed with us to receive Jesus and at age 82 he was saved, only 5 months before he died. Please don't wait that long to let go of your need to believe by reason or knowledge. Faith is so simple, even a child can understand! I pray that one day you will understand this.

 

[james57]

The uneducated have been deceived just as much as the educated. (think superstitions)

But the uneducated appear to have the edge:

At this time, Jesus full of joy through the holy spirit, said. I praise you father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father for this was your good pleasure luke 10:21

 

[wolfwint]

To avoid confusion with terms, these are the definitions I am using:



Anyone who holds gnostic (lowercase 'g') beliefs regarding theistic claims must necessarily have used epistemology to arrive at their conclusions (gnostic-theism is the most frequently espoused position on this site). Conversely, Someone who is agnostic towards theistic claims admits that they can not justify their belief with epistemology. I see nothing wrong with the latter position. Using only the limited information available to me, it seems more honest and sincere to admit "I don't know, but I believe" than to cherry-pick which epistemic approach to apply based on subject matter (i.e. "special pleading").

Because it is the process by which we validate and justify our belief, epistemology seems to be a more fundamental conception than belief itself. We must put the horse before the cart. Unfortunately, it is rarely discussed because it can raise uncomfortable questions for those with gilded beliefs built on weak foundations (i think a firm understanding of epistemology is necessary to develop a solid foundation for belief).

Every gnostic-theist must have utilized the epistemology learned during their lifetime to determine that theism is a "justified true belief."

I would like to hear how you've reconciled epistemology with theism and concluded that gnostic-theism is the truth. Also, what process did you use to determine that Christianity's tenets are objective truths? And those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, etc. are not? I consider myself an agnostic-theist: I am a believer in God, although I can not justify my belief with any consistent epistemology.

I don't mean to be insulting or combative by asking these questions and apologize if I come across that way. I just want to know how you guys use epistemology to justify your beliefs. It would help me tremendously if I could understand how to apply epistemic logic to my observations and conclude with certainty that Jesus died for my sins.

I am a lousy communicator, so here is a graphic to sum up my question. How can I (or "how did you") move from the blue into the yellow of this Euler diagram (assuming the proposition is "God, as described in the Bible, is real.")?

View attachment 141274

Thanks!

Also, I read the Bible and pray every day (so please, no knee-jerk suggestions like "Pray more." or "Read the Bible more." unless there is a specific book, chapter, or verse that will help). I read it frequently, but have yet to find justification for belief that withstands epistemic scrutiny.

The claims of inerrancy within the Bible itself (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverb 30:5, Psalm 12:6) seem to induce circular reasoning that has no epistemic value ("How do you know the Bible is inerrant?" "Because it says so." "Why should I believe what the Bible says?" "Because it is inerrant." and repeat). After all, the Koran (and many other religious texts) also claims inerrancy (Al-An'am 6:115, An-Najm 53:1-5). How did you use epistemology to find the truth about God?

Well, i find it not so much difficult. While hearing god word about that what Jesus did for me.In me rose the wish, if this is true then i want to know this Jesus. ( i was 25 and sitting in a youth club)
In this night i knew i have to deceide for Jesus.
So i went after the meeging to the youthleader house. Told him that i want to know Jesus. He read some verses like john 1,12 and 1.john 1.9 and asked me i believe it. I must say i had no problem to believe what is written in the Bible.
I said Yes. Then i prayed to God and asked him to forgive my sins and ask Jesus to come into my life. From this moment i know that i belong to God and i had peace and joy in my heart. It was God who made the first step!

 

[crow_t_robot]

But the uneducated appear to have the edge:

At this time, Jesus full of joy through the holy spirit, said. I praise you father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father for this was your good pleasure luke 10:21

There is a difference between being an uneducated child and a willfully-ignorant adult. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but it does include an entire book (Proverbs) with the stated purpose (Proverbs 1:1-7) of bestowing knowledge, wisdom, and understanding upon the reader. Why avoid these virtues and advocate ignorance?

 

[blondieindahouse]

I am a lousy communicator, so here is a graphic to sum up my question. How can I (or "how did you") move from the blue into the yellow of this Euler diagram (assuming the proposition is "God, as described in the Bible, is real.")?

I will answer your question in two words. Holy Spirit

Its really quite simple.
Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God.Romans 10:17

 

[james57]

There is a difference between being an uneducated child and a willfully-ignorant adult. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but it does include an entire book (Proverbs) with the stated purpose (Proverbs 1:1-7) of bestowing knowledge, wisdom, and understanding upon the reader. Why avoid these virtues and advocate ignorance?

I think what Jesus was meaning was, people who considered themselves worldly intelligent and thought through that intelligence they understood the scriptures, did not see the truth.
However, those who were not proud and did not believe through their own understanding/academic mind they could see the truth, people who simply trusted in simple, childlike faith would know the truth of the kingdom of heaven

 

[FreeNChrist]

I understand that you are a Christian. But my question was about knowledge, not belief. It was about gnosticism, not theism.

Here is an example of a gnostic dichotomy: "One either has knowledge that it will rain tomorrow, or one does not have knowledge that it will rain tomorrow." This is a true-dichotomy, and there is no middle ground. You must be either in the former group (gnostic) or the latter group (agnostic). Personally, I don't know if it will rain tomorrow. I am an agnostic-precipitationist.

A theistic dichotomy would be more like: "One either believes that a God exists, or one does not believe that a God exists." You expressed your view on theism, but I was asking about about gnosticism.

Whatever your question is, I was responding to one statement contained within your diatribe. I suggest you watch the Weather Channel. There's no need to get caught in a rainstorm without your umbrella, when the knowledge of whether it will rain tomorrow is readily available to you.

 

[Willie-T]

But, interestingly, the Bible actually does not claim "inerrancy."

Fair enough, but I've been told otherwise by many Christians. Perhaps the interpretation of the verses I mentioned is a point of contention among believers. I don't know much about the subject. Wikipedia says: "Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching." Even if the Bible does not explicitly claim inerrancy, many believers do. And I still wonder: "How did they come to that knowledge?"

"Many Believers" believe just about anything you can dream of. Not to be flippant, but, "So what?"

 

[oldthennew]

So is my seeking knowledge of God futile? Are my prayer and Biblical studies wasted time because The Truth has not found me? So many members here seem to be gnostic in their claims of Christianity, and I simply want to understand why.

====================================================================

No, not futile at all, actually it is mandatory in order to have a two-way-relationship....
we are sure that you have found many Truths, it's the beginning.....

we have to study and pray, because we have to seek Him on His terms, and not ours...

it's different for each individual, Spiritual relationships are personal and unique...but,
knowing what is required of us is paramount....a life-long journey, if you will....

when our Father's Holiness touches us, we will have no more doubt, ups and downs, yes,
but the existence/reality of God and Christ, there can be no doubt.....

 

[crossnote]

But the uneducated appear to have the edge:

At this time, Jesus full of joy through the holy spirit, said. I praise you father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father for this was your good pleasure luke 10:21

It was the Father's good pleasure, not our wits or unwits.

1Co 1:25-29 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (26) For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. (27) But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; (28) God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, (29) so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

This brings us to God's choice of how He reveals. He takes something the world deems foolish such as the preaching of the cross and resurrection to save which normally confounds the wise.

 

[crow_t_robot]

I think what Jesus was meaning was, people who considered themselves worldly intelligent and thought through that intelligence they understood the scriptures, did not see the truth.
However, those who were not proud and did not believe through their own understanding/academic mind they could see the truth, people who simply trusted in simple, childlike faith would know the truth of the kingdom of heaven

Your interpretation seems reasonable to me. Thank you for explaining that verse. I had taken his words literally at face value, but now I understand what you mean.

But I'm still stuck on how scripture can even be interpreted, or Biblical claims evaluated, without applying some sort of consistent epistemic logic. For example: by interpreting this verse, you have used your intelligence/understanding/academic mind to conclude that intelligence/understanding/academic minds cannot be trusted to make valid conclusions. Do you see any fallacy there?

Whatever your question is, I was responding to one statement contained within your diatribe. I suggest you watch the Weather Channel. There's no need to get caught in a rainstorm without your umbrella, when the knowledge of whether it will rain tomorrow is readily available to you.

You misunderstood my original statement by conflating belief and knowledge. I tried explaining the difference, but your new post only furthur exemplifies your misunderstanding of "knowledge." The weather channel uses statistics, known weather patterns, standard deviations, confidence intervals, etc. to make forecasts, which are a far cry from "knowledge."

"Many Believers" believe just about anything you can dream of. Not to be flippant, but, "So what?"

You are absolutely correct. And this is precisely why the "So what?" is important to me. I want to believe the truth, and find a route to theistic knowledge. I think the contention and discord among Christians, caused by entrenched beliefs, could be easily reconciled if we were encouraged to apply valid epistemic reasoning to our beliefs rather than use inconsistent or fallacious epistemology.

This wide range of beliefs among Christians is exactly why we should embrace the study of knowledge (and the questions it raises) rather than hide from it and build towering belief structures on sandy foundations. The problem I am seeing is some Christians seem afraid to ask themselves these difficult questions. Like: "How do i justify that my belief [X] is true?" or "Do I use those same standards of to justify other beliefs throughout my daily life?" or "How did I acquire my knowledge about God?" Maybe it is because they don't want to confront the inadequacies of their answers. With so much variation of belief among Christians, we can't all be right about everything.

But we digress. You still have not answered my simple questions, just derailed my thread with veiled insults (not to be flippant or anything), while contributing nothing to the discussion.

So, back on track:
You believe the Bible has errors? What do you believe regarding Christ and salvation? Do you have any epistemic justification for these beliefs, or are they agnostic beliefs?

 

[FreeNChrist]

You misunderstood my original statement by conflating belief and knowledge. I tried explaining the difference, but your new post only furthur exemplifies your misunderstanding of "knowledge." The weather channel uses statistics, known weather patterns, standard deviations, confidence intervals, etc. to make forecasts, which are a far cry from "knowledge."

Fine. But don't start crying when you get all wet.