Epistemology is the key

[R_Daneel]

Materialists (or atheists) divide the Universe into two parts: physical and conceptual (or abstract). The way to gain knowledge, or information about the physical reality is the method of empiricism. Empiricism is based upon observation, hypothesis forming, prediction and verification. This is the epistemological method pertaining to physical reality. It is based on basic principles, which are commonly accepted. This is called the inductive method. Believers also subscribe to this method when it comes to the physical reality.

The second type of reality is the abstract or conceptual reality. The ways and means to gain knowledge about this aspect of reality in not empirical. It is based upon axioms and logical deductions from those axioms. This is called the deductive method.

Believers assert that there is another (third) type of existence, which they call supernatural. They insist that this type of existence is neither physical, not purely conceptual. They insist that this kind of existence is at least “somewhat” knowable - one can have true and false claims about this existence. The question is: what kind of epistemological method is there to employ? How does one differentiate between a true claim about the supernatural and a false claim about the supernatural?

They deny the empiricist method. Of course, they immediately run into a problem here. At the very least the supernatural is supposed to interact with the physical world. At the point of interaction the supernatural can be caught “red handed”, becuse there is a change in the physical reality, which is subject to empirical verification. They conveniantly overlook this aspect of the supernatural, which is a methodological error.

Furthermore, any epistemological method worth to be contemplated must be objective, and must offer a method of separating a true claim from a false claim. Without these attributes it just “hangs in the air”, it is useless.

So, the ball is in your court: what kind of epistemological method can you offer?

 

[Just_Lurking]

One thing I look for is strength of belief. The apostles and the early Christians gave their lives and endured torture for their belief in Jesus Christ.

How many martyrs are there for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[R_Daneel]

One thing I look for is strength of belief.

Based upon this criterion, Allah is a better contender since the “martyrs” in the 9/11 attack believed so strongly that they voluntarily “sacrificed” their lives for their belief. And there are many of these volunteers to attest to the strength of their belief. How many Christians volunteer these days to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs?

The apostles and the early Christians gave their lives and endured torture for their belief in Jesus Christ.

According some legend. What is the basis for accepting that legend? The strength of your belief? Are you willing to be tortured and killed for your belief?

How many martyrs are there for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Currently they are not being persecuted… maybe we should put them unto the test, to find out the strength of their belief.

On a more serious note, an epistemological method should be objective. There is nothing as subjective as the strength of one’s belief.

 

[Watchman]

The empirical method, like litmus paper, works very well within the scope of its ability. Though tools for empirical study have been improving throughout history and will continue to do so, there are still objective truths that fall beyond its boundaries. To deny the existence of truths that are currently unreachable via epistemological study is like denying the existence of the radioactive properties of uranium because they produce no change in litmus paper.

Just to be clear, I am not speaking solely of the “supernatural”. Physics, cosmology, and history all contain accepted “truths” that are untestable and therefor unverifiable.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So, the ball is in your court: what kind of epistemological method can you offer?

Out of curiosity, what epistemological method are you proposing? It sounds like you advocate that on general principles, nothing super-natural exists, so your epistemological method is to reject all super-natural claims out of hand.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Based upon this criterion, Allah is a better contender since the “martyrs” in the 9/11 attack believed so strongly that they voluntarily “sacrificed” their lives for their belief. And there are many of these volunteers to attest to the strength of their belief. How many Christians volunteer these days to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs?

Recall that the 9/11 hijacker pilots lied to other hijacker terrorists, who thought they were going to be spending the rest of their lives in jail, and not dead. And many suicide bombers report being coerced with threats against their family members if they didn’t go through with it.

But Islam is also a contender, although I don’t agree that it is a better contender. Note that Catholics claim (since Vatican II anyway) that the Allah, the God of Islam, is Christianity’s God the Father.

 

[R_Daneel]

The empirical method, like litmus paper, works very well within the scope of its ability. Though tools for empirical study have been improving throughout history and will continue to do so, there are still objective truths that fall beyond its boundaries. To deny the existence of truths that are currently unreachable via epistemological study is like denying the existence of the radioactive properties of uranium because they produce no change in litmus paper.

Just to be clear, I am not speaking solely of the “supernatural”. Physics, cosmology, and history all contain accepted “truths” that are untestable and therefor unverifiable.

Examples please. Make sure that you do not include the basic, unverifyable assumptions or principles. For example: “the external reality exists”, or “our senses correctly reflect reality”. These are basic principles, not subject to verification.

I am interested what kind of epistemological “tools” are you speaking of. I am only familiar with the empirical (observe, form hypothesis, make prediction and verify) method. Everywhere is the physical reality this is the one and only tool that is being used.

Forget history. History is not a science of reality. It is merely a record of what happened or supposed to have happened in the past.

 

[R_Daneel]

Out of curiosity, what epistemological method are you proposing?

I am simply asking about the methods you employ for differentiating a true from a false claim, where the claim pertains to the “supernatural”.

It sounds like you advocate that on general principles, nothing super-natural exists, so your epistemological method is to reject all super-natural claims out of hand.

As far as i am concerned, yes, the concept of any “supernatural” is a bogus claim. But that is neither here nor there. My ideas do not count. You advocate a third realm of existence, which is neither physical (though it is supposed to be able to interact with the physical world) nor purely conceptual. You make propostions about this existence. Mind you, even different people with different beliefs about the supernatural have conflicting propositions about it. How do you find out which propositions are true and which ones are false? That is what epistemology is all about.

Your first approximation (the strength of the belief) clearly does not cut it. Maybe you wish to try again.

 

[Just_Lurking]

According some legend. What is the basis for accepting that legend?

I accept the findings of professional historians on this matter. The persecutions of the early Christians are well documented.

The strength of your belief? Are you willing to be tortured and killed for your belief?

I hope I don’t have to find out. But even so, I place more credence on the strength of the beliefs of the early Chistians, who knew Christ and/or the apostles personally, than on modern day Christians, who are thousands of years away from the relevant events.

 

[Just_Lurking]

On a more serious note, an epistemological method should be objective. There is nothing as subjective as the strength of one’s belief.

My method is epistemologically objective, unless you dismiss the entire realm of the social sciences from your purview. The beliefs that I study are indeed ontologically subjective, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be studied objectively from an epistemological point of view.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I am simply asking about the methods you employ for differentiating a true from a false claim, where the claim pertains to the “supernatural”.

A reasonable question, which I am performing some introspection to try to answer. I’m not really metaphysically inclined myself.

Your first approximation (the strength of the belief) clearly does not cut it. Maybe you wish to try again.

I can’t guarantee that my method will “cut it” for you. That’s your decision to make.

Hopefully you can understand why I don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[djeter]

The real argumentn is in these two posts about Rene Girard. The first speaks to some of this theories concerning mimetic violence which have been widely adapted and praised. The second shows how these theories validate the truth of the gospels.

The point I would ask you to consider is that Girard goes on to claim then an epistomological basis for the gospel truth.

1. 
   *]payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/04/rene-girard/
   *]payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/
   
   If you see the linkage between 1 and 2, wouldn’t there be an epistomological basis then? Just wondering what you would think.
   
   dj

 

[R_Daneel]

My method is epistemologically objective,

For the purposes of clarification: do you speak of the strength of the beliefs as an indicator for the veracity of the beliefs? If so, consider: in the previous ages the flatness of the Earth was taken for granted. No one had any doubt about it. Did the strength of their conviction make the Earth flat?

…unless you dismiss the entire realm of the social sciences from your purview.

Which social sciences are you talking about?

The beliefs that I study are indeed ontologically subjective, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be studied objectively from an epistemological point of view.

Accepted. What method do you sue to tell true beliefs from false ones?

 

[R_Daneel]

A reasonable question, which I am performing some introspection to try to answer. I’m not really metaphysically inclined myself.

Thank you. I will wait.

I can’t guarantee that my method will “cut it” for you. That’s your decision to make.

Right. And I am patient. When you will elaborate, I will read it.

Hopefully you can understand why I don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am not sure. Hopefully for the very same reason that I discard the notion of the Christian God - because you find the FSM without merit (on its own right) and you do not see any supporting evidence for its existence.

 

[R_Daneel]

The real argumentn is in these two posts about Rene Girard. The first speaks to some of this theories concerning mimetic violence which have been widely adapted and praised. The second shows how these theories validate the truth of the gospels.

The point I would ask you to consider is that Girard goes on to claim then an epistomological basis for the gospel truth.

1. 
   *]payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/04/rene-girard/
   *]payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/
   
   If you see the linkage between 1 and 2, wouldn’t there be an epistomological basis then? Just wondering what you would think.
   
   dj

1. 
   I would prefer a short summary. I am not going to argue with an article. If your summary would whet my appetite, I will go and read them.

 

[tafan]

I would prefer a short summary. I am not going to argue with an article. If your summary would whet my appetite, I will go and read them.

Are you at all serious about discussing these topics that you bring up? It seems you may just be a troll. You ask a question, make repeated posts about various replies, continually ask for an answer, and then won’t take the time to read posted articles that someone posts in order to discuss the question.

 

[djeter]

I would prefer a short summary. I am not going to argue with an article. If your summary would whet my appetite, I will go and read them.

A Selection from {1}
“Picture two young children playing happily on their porch, a pile of toys beside them. The older child pulls a G.I. Joe from the pile and immediately, his younger brother cries out, “No, my toy,” pushes him out of the way, and grabs it. The older child, who was not very interested in the toy when he picked it up, now conceives a passionate need for it and attempts to wrest it back. Soon a full fight ensues, with the toy forgotten and the two boys busy pummeling each other.

As the fight intensifies, the overweight child next door wanders into their yard and comes up to them, looking for someone to play with. At that point, one of the two rivals looks up and says, “Oh, there’s old fat butt!” “Yeah,” says his brother. “Big fat butt!” The two, having forgotten the toy, now forget their fight and run the child back home. Harmony has been restored between the two brothers, though the neighbor is now indoors crying.”

McDonald continues: “It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that Girard builds his whole theory of human nature and human culture through a close analysis of the dynamics operating in this story. Most human desires are not “original” or spontaneous, he argues, but are created by imitating another whom he calls the “model.” When the model claims an object, that tells another that it is desirable — and that he must have it instead of him. Girard calls this “mimetic” (or imitative) desire. In the subsequent rivalry, the two parties will come to forget the object and will come to desire the conflict for itself. Harmony will only be restored if the conflicting parties can vent their anger on a common enemy or ‘scapegoat.’…Girard shows, throughout the body of his work, how his theory of “mimetic” desire can illuminate and unify an extraordinarily disparate set of human phenomena. It can explain everything from sacrifice to conflict, from mythology to Christianity.

And from {2}

"As soon as we become reconciled to the similarities between violence in the Bible and myths, we can understand how the Bible is not mythical — how the reaction to violence recorded in the Bible radically differs from the reaction recorded in myth.

Beginning with the story of Cain and Abel, the Bible proclaims the innocence of mythical victims and the guilt of their victimizers. Living after the widespread promulgation of the gospel, we find this natural and never pause to think that in classical myths the opposite is true: the persecutors always seem to have a valid cause to persecute their victims. The Dionysiac myths regard even the most horrible lynchings as legitimate. Pentheus in the Bacchae is legitimately slain by his mother and sisters, for his contempt of the god Dionysus is a fault serious enough to warrant his death. Oedipus, too, deserves his fate. According to the myth, he has truly killed his father and married his mother, and is thus truly responsible for the plague that ravages Thebes. To cast him out is not merely a permissible action, but a religious duty.

Even if they are not accused of any crime, mythical victims are still supposed to die for a good cause, and their innocence makes their deaths no less legitimate."

I would say those two passages capture some of the essentials. I wouldn’t want to give you a summary because that would be my reading of the articles; I’d prefer you do your own work and then engage in a discussion but I do understand it is a lot of work. For me it was something enjoyable, something I’ve been thinking of and your discussion here relates to it.

I’m not asking you to “argue with an article” but to relate to how an epistomological framework could be built from the gospels.

dj

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Materialists (or atheists) divide the Universe into two parts: physical and conceptual (or abstract).

im interested in the explanation that a materialist has for this immaterial (conceptual, or abstract)reality?

The way to gain knowledge, or information about the physical reality is the method of empiricism. Empiricism is based upon observation, hypothesis forming, prediction and verification. This is the epistemological method pertaining to physical reality. It is based on basic principles, which are commonly accepted. This is called the inductive method. Believers also subscribe to this method when it comes to the physical reality.

as i demonstrated last night, in another thread, talking with you about this very subject.

empiricism and verification systems are self refuting. there is no experiment that can prove empiricism or verification schemas true. they cant pass their own test. thus they pose a logical contradiction.

all you can say, is “i see this has happened, and it seems to have made this happen” that is the limit of empiricism without the help of rationalism. (mathematics, logics, etc)

The second type of reality is the abstract or conceptual reality. The ways and means to gain knowledge about this aspect of reality in not empirical. It is based upon axioms and logical deductions from those axioms. This is called the deductive method.

the price of a self proclaimed materialist, $0.99. the price of one who is now expounding on the functions of an immaterial (abstract or conceptual) reality in the same breath…priceless.

though you just answered your own question about the appropriate standards.

Believers assert that there is another (third) type of existence, which they call supernatural. They insist that this type of existence is neither physical, not purely conceptual. They insist that this kind of existence is at least “somewhat” knowable - one can have true and false claims about this existence. The question is: what kind of epistemological method is there to employ? How does one differentiate between a true claim about the supernatural and a false claim about the supernatural?

we dont assert a third existence.

but you answerd your own question above.

They deny the empiricist method. Of course, they immediately run into a problem here. At the very least the supernatural is supposed to interact with the physical world. At the point of interaction the supernatural can be caught “red handed”, becuse there is a change in the physical reality, which is subject to empirical verification. They conveniantly overlook this aspect of the supernatural, which is a methodological error.

every time that you make a free will decision, you are catching it redhanded. we arent overlooking it, youre just missing it.

So, the ball is in your court: what kind of epistemological method can you offer?

there is no ball in our court simply because i showed you the faults in empiricism. you answered your own question above.

 

[1holycatholic]

Recall that the 9/11 hijacker pilots lied to other hijacker terrorists, who thought they were going to be spending the rest of their lives in jail, and not dead. And many suicide bombers report being coerced with threats against their family members if they didn’t go through with it.

But Islam is also a contender, although I don’t agree that it is a better contender. Note that Catholics claim (since Vatican II anyway) that the Allah, the God of Islam, is Christianity’s God the Father.

The Church acknowledges that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. That’s a statement of fact that you could find from secular sources as well.

 

[JP2Admirer]

How do we determine which metaphyical claims are true and which are false? It’s actually quite simple, and warpspeedpetey suggested it with the logical contradiction that empiricism runs into.

There are certain principles of being that we learn from epistemological realism. So, we know for instance that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way. This principle is indubitable, because to refute it one must employ it.

So, there we have our first principle of being. Now we know that nothing can violate that principle, as it is not only a logical contradiction, but an experiential contradiction. So if someone is going to claim that God can be both a cow and not a cow at the same time in the same way, then we know that is a false metaphysical claim.

It is basically a combination of logic (by logic I mean the bedrock of reasoning, not simply “makes sense”)and experience that we can use to verify metaphysical claims.

This is what led Aquinas to claim that we can only know about God’s quiddity (essence) through the via negativa. Therefore, we can deny statements about God and arrive at an imperfect description of what He is, through the differences we discover. So, we build from sense realism to conceptual reality and from conceptual reality we use experience to verify or deny certain claims. That is, experience provides us with our principles and we draw conclusions using logical reasoning to know something about the supernatural.

i.e. Being is the first principle of all reality; non-contradiction is the first division of being, and so on.

(Incidentally, your critique sound’s awefully Kantian, as his claim was that metaphysical objects were completely unknowable, which led to the jettisonning of metaphysics in modernity. Modern atheists are often unknowing students of a good Pietist Christian )