Supernatural epistemology?

[Spock]

I have been asking these questions, within threads, and no one, ever attempted to give an answer. So I am devoting a thread to this problem. The question is simple:

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? ** In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

It is asserted that the supernatural (God, souls, angels, whatevers) are not physical, and therefore they cannot be verifed empirically, by observation. (Of course there is a question then, how do these entities interact or influence the physical world. But that is a side problem at this moment.) Concentrate on the main question: “what is the supernatural epistemology?”. How do we gain knowledge about the supernatural?

The foreseeable answer: “by revelation” is not acceptable. Most of us never get a revelation, no matter how fervently and honestly we pray for one. The second possible answer would be: “by testimonials” - which is also unacceptable, since it would only push the problem one step back. How would we decide if the testimonial is without error, since we are fallible human beings?

Is there an objective, repeatable method, which would allow to separate the wheat from the chaff, which does not necessitate the a-priori acceptance of the claim (in other words, which can be used by a non-believer)?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have been asking these questions, within threads, and no one, ever attempted to give an answer. So I am devoting a thread to this problem. The question is simple:

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? ** In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

It is asserted that the supernatural (God, souls, angels, whatevers) are not physical, and therefore they cannot be verifed empirically, by observation. (Of course there is a question then, how do these entities interact or influence the physical world. But that is a side problem at this moment.) Concentrate on the main question: “what is the supernatural epistemology?”. How do we gain knowledge about the supernatural?

The foreseeable answer: “by revelation” is not acceptable. Most of us never get a revelation, no matter how fervently and honestly we pray for one. The second possible answer would be: “by testimonials” - which is also unacceptable, since it would only push the problem one step back. How would we decide if the testimonial is without error, since we are fallible human beings?

Is there an objective, repeatable method, which would allow to separate the wheat from the chaff, which does not necessitate the a-priori acceptance of the claim (in other words, which can be used by a non-believer)?

The answer could not simpler. You and I talking is “Supernatural epistemology”. There is not matter here (well, the Internet electrons,…) , but an exchange of ideas, which are not material (I never saw an idea!).

You and me talking it is amazing, how come?, no dog or elephant could do what we are doing, I do not where you are or you are you, this is Supernatural epistemology. I is not material like a car, a computer or an hamburger. It is spiritual.

You are a spirit who is talkin to me, another spirit. Soul or whatever …

 

[Spock]

The answer could not simpler. You and I talking is “Supernatural epistemology”. There is not matter here (well, the Internet electrons,…) , but an exchange of ideas, which are not material (I never saw an idea!).

Is that it? God is simply an idea, like “justice”? Justice does not exist, except as an idea. Ideas cannot act, ideas are inert. Is God just like that? I would agree to that, but you seem to border on being heretical, if you maintain that line of thought.

You are a spirit who is talkin to me, another spirit. Soul or whatever …

Nope, I am a human or a very sophisticated computer (you cannot know which one), but most certainly composed of matter. The last “spirit” I encountered was a good, perfectly distilled Scotch whisky, and I was in “good spirits” because of it. Ghosts or spirits are not material, they cannot “talk”. Talking face to face needs vocal chords, which “spirits” lack. Coomunicating through the net requires fingers to type, which are also absent in the case of “spirits”.

My question still stands: allegedly the supernatural entities are different from inert ideas and they are not composed of matter. Yet, they are supposed to be active. Can anyone offer a proper epistemological method to find out if those propositions about these “immaterial thingies” are true or false? Let’s see the next contender. The first one did not make it.

 

[aicirt]

The first one made it for me. Gave a good explanation. I’m sure mine will not make sense to you either. I don’t think any explanation can if you don’t have faith.
St. Paul was an ardent Jew but was struck off his horse and heard the voice of Christ. Does that happen to ordinary men today? Yes. Until it happens to you, in what ever form Christ calls you, you will not believe. So if I were you I’d pray, “Christ show me what I need to know”. It will happen in His time, not yours but you will see things clearer.

 

[DPMartin]

I have been asking these questions, within threads, and no one, ever attempted to give an answer. So I am devoting a thread to this problem. The question is simple:

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? ** In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

It is asserted that the supernatural (God, souls, angels, whatevers) are not physical, and therefore they cannot be verifed empirically, by observation. (Of course there is a question then, how do these entities interact or influence the physical world. But that is a side problem at this moment.) Concentrate on the main question: “what is the supernatural epistemology?”. How do we gain knowledge about the supernatural?

The foreseeable answer: “by revelation” is not acceptable. Most of us never get a revelation, no matter how fervently and honestly we pray for one. The second possible answer would be: “by testimonials” - which is also unacceptable, since it would only push the problem one step back. How would we decide if the testimonial is without error, since we are fallible human beings?

Is there an objective, repeatable method, which would allow to separate the wheat from the chaff, which does not necessitate the a-priori acceptance of the claim (in other words, which can be used by a non-believer)?

What is the result of God’s work? Your looking at it. Hence if you don’t respect that, then why should he respect your request to know for sure, in the expectance of “Revelation”. If He doesn’t reveal that He is unto you, you will never know. Can’t know, what you don’t know. And witnesses are the way men come to know, for you must come to know some one who knows God to find out how to know God.

Since you are brought in to His domain of life and living in His creation and you don’t respect His work or His Choice or His Presence, why should He respond to you in any favorable fashion that would give you assurance that He is. If you choice to respect God on your own terms, He need not your terms in order to be who He is. To know God, is to know God on His terms, according to His agreement with mankind, and you are in human existence.

Basically supernatural proof or knowledge of, is childish gobbly-gook (God didn’t meet my terms, therefore God is not there) that justifies the none believer to not believe. God has provided restoration into His Presence to mankind, don’t seek it, don’t have it. And any one who has honestly sot to know God in the name of Jesus Christ, according to His terms, has never been denied. And Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s agreement to mankind to be restored into His Presence in order to know God, and that He is.

Jesus is the Only Way, and anything else is misinformation. Scientific minds may be looking for other ways to know, but if you notice, they can’t find it.

 

[Spock]

The first one made it for me. Gave a good explanation. I’m sure mine will not make sense to you either. I don’t think any explanation can if you don’t have faith.

The Catholic Church asserts dogmatically that God’s existence can be known by reason alone, without any reference to faith. Unfortunately neither in the dogmas, nor in the catechism does it tell us (explicitly and in the necessary details) just how can this happen. In other words it tells us that there is a supernatural epistemology, but leaves it at that.

I was hoping that someone can “fill in the gaps”. So far it did not happen. It looks like that all the believers have a supernatural metaphysics - God exists - but no supernatural epistemology telling us, how can that be known? Of course you don’t need it, after all you have your faith, but you are supposed to be able to bring the “good news” to the rest of the world. Strange that God never gave you the proper tools to do that.

 

[Spock]

What is the result of God’s work? Your looking at it.

And I can know that: how? That is the question. You made a claim about God and the supernatural. Now would be the perfect time to substantiate it, via epistemology. Where is the beef?

Jesus is the Only Way, and anything else is misinformation. Scientific minds may be looking for other ways to know, but if you notice, they can’t find it.

You are ignorant of the Catholic dogma, I see. Better brush up you knowledge about it.

 

[DPMartin]

And I can know that: how? That is the question. You made a claim about God and the supernatural. Now would be the perfect time to substantiate it, via epistemology. Where is the beef?

Spock
thanks for the reply

You must acknowledge Him in your heart in your Soul and in your mind, and verbally is also good. You call upon the name of Jesus Christ, and it most certainly can be a private thing. You ask the Son of the Living God, Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, and that He be your Lord and Savior in the name of Jesus Christ and that He would baptize you with the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and then get with those who know God in the same relationship. You must acknowledge Him in your heart in your Soul and in your mind.

You are ignorant of the Catholic dogma, I see. Better brush up you knowledge about it.

No I was rased a Catholic, and you were ignorant of that.

No one is required to know Catholic Dogma to know God through His Son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. The third chapter of Gospel according to Apostle John (a entrusted witness) is clear. To know the world one must be born into the world, to know the Spirit, one must be born in the Spirit. God Bless my friend, and may the Lord be with you always.

 

[Spock]

You must acknowledge Him in your heart in your Soul and in your mind, and verbally is also good. You call upon the name of Jesus Christ, and it most certainly can be a private thing. You ask the Son of the Living God, Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, and that He be your Lord and Savior in the name of Jesus Christ and that He would baptize you with the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and then get with those who know God in the same relationship. You must acknowledge Him in your heart in your Soul and in your mind.

This is all very nice, but has nothing to do with the question I asked. One more time: “is there any reliable method, which can be used by both a believer and an atheist, which will separate a true proposition from a false one, when that proposition deals with the supernatural?”. I am not interested in apologetics, I am interested in the second branch of philosophy, called epistemology.

No I was rased a Catholic, and you are ignorant of that.

No one is required to know Catholic Dogma to know God through His Son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. The third chapter of Gospel according to Apostle John (a entrusted witness) is clear.

The dogma says explicitly that God can be known via reason ALONE, without resorting to faith. That is what I was referring to. That dogma is binding on everyone who is Catholic. You said that faith is necessary to know anything about God. Incidentally, I strongly AGREE with you, however, the Catholic Church does not.

 

[DPMartin]

This is all very nice, but has nothing to do with the question I asked. One more time: “is there any reliable method, which can be used by both a believer and an atheist, which will separate a true proposition from a false one, when that proposition deals with the supernatural?”. I am not interested in apologetics, I am interested in the second branch of philosophy, called epistemology.

The dogma says explicitly that God can be known via reason ALONE, without resorting to faith. That is what I was referring to. That dogma is binding on everyone who is Catholic. You said that faith is necessary to know anything about God. Incidentally, I strongly AGREE with you, however, the Catholic Church does not.

Spock
thanks for the reply

To prove God in philosophy my friend is the same for religion, for the scientist, for the working man, the poor out in the street. As lone as those you speak to, refuse to trust the knowledge that God has give to the world in the world. There position remains the same, they do not what to give up what they want.

But what I have found, is as long as humans believe there is a god, (in their view) whether true or imaginary, then there is a god in human existence. And it seems they can’t refute that. Also if there is a incorrect way of life then there is a correct way of life. And we know that the Way of Life is the Truth of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. You don’t have to smack them around with scripture or insist that they believe as you. Question their belief, and in the respect that they might consider the possibility that there is a true Living God that can be known. Because philosophy is also about considering the possibility.

Thought you maybe correct in your interpretation of Catholic Dogma that is also interpretation. The Catholic Church still agrees, sometimes reluctantly, to the Scripture first. And it is possible what is intended in what your saying about Catholic Dogma on the subject of reason. Is that plainly God is not illogical and can be known and understood. But it is also possible that this dogma is in assumption that you have be born or baptize in the Holy Spirit and know God already. In the Catholic’s eyes, if you are Catholic, then you are born in the Holy Spirit. Not all Church doctrines are blank, for believer and none-believer. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If those who acknowledge must acknowledge God to know God that He is God, then the same is required for the none believer in order to know the same God.

 

[davidv]

I have been asking these questions, within threads, and no one, ever attempted to give an answer. So I am devoting a thread to this problem. The question is simple:

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? **In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

It is asserted that the supernatural (God, souls, angels, whatevers) are not physical, and therefore they cannot be verifed empirically, by observation. (Of course there is a question then, how do these entities interact or influence the physical world. But that is a side problem at this moment.) Concentrate on the main question: “what is the supernatural epistemology?”. How do we gain knowledge about the supernatural?

The foreseeable answer: “by revelation” is not acceptable. Most of us never get a revelation, no matter how fervently and honestly we pray for one. The second possible answer would be: “by testimonials” - which is also unacceptable, since it would only push the problem one step back. How would we decide if the testimonial is without error, since we are fallible human beings?

Is there an objective, repeatable method, which would allow to separate the wheat from the chaff, which does not necessitate the a-priori acceptance of the claim (in other words, which can be used by a non-believer)?

It seems to me that the contraints that you are artifically imposing guarantees that you will not get an accepable answer.

Have you seen an electron? How do you know it exists?

God has made himself known primarly through the incarnation of Jesus. A man who lived in time, and demonstrated that He was God, and taught His disciplines how to live life to the fullest. He established an institution to continue teaching His Way.

God’s existance can be known through the effects He causes. These can be deduced or inferred by reason.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is all very nice, but has nothing to do with the question I asked. One more time: “is there any reliable method, which can be used by both a believer and an atheist, which will separate a true proposition from a false one, when that proposition deals with the supernatural?”. I am not interested in apologetics, I am interested in the second branch of philosophy, called epistemology.

There is a method but it’s not as reliable as you might want. You need to go away with a sincere desire to learn, and study and meditate on the religious texts that have dealt with these supernatural questions. You will find that people who do this come to a range of conclusions, but these conclusions have a core set of truths which are common to most holy people.

However, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Also someone who is not inclined to believe is not likely to pursue the matter seriously. But it is a method that works.

 

[Shike]

I have been asking these questions, within threads, and no one, ever attempted to give an answer. So I am devoting a thread to this problem. The question is simple:

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? ** In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

This is a great question; thank you for asking it! I do not have all the answers but I think I can give some pointers so I will chime in.

I think it would be important to first analyze your definition of knowledge… what constitutes knowledge? It seems that your definition is very strict and it would not depend upon the kind of subject matter one was dealing with. From speaking with you on a previous thread, I have a hunch that you take your model of knowledge from science and apply it across the board into other subject matters. Please correct me if my hunch is wrong.

That said, I think knowledge can be had from revelation and testimony if you trust the source. You are correct that not everyone (perhaps very few at all) has had some kind of personal revelation. I say so what. One of the reasons for the existence of the Catholic Church is to provide testimony of its revelation of Christ. But if you want to leave aside the question of faith and move more in the direction of reason (which is not contrary to faith), especially since we are in a philosophy forum, I will gladly follow.

Though I think that nature proclaims the glory of God and that studying it through science can tell us something of God’s creation and therefore God, these are all further claims than the strict scope of science (I am no ID theorist). But one area that can give knowledge of the supernatural, of the kind that best fits your definition of knowledge, is philosophy.

I recommend the introductory chapters on faith and reason in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft and Tacelli. Here the authors bring in some older philosophy that talks about the three acts of the mind: apprehension, judgment, and calculation (the third sometimes called reasoning). You can have knowledge of all three kinds (it is very interesting to see how many enlightenment thinkers conflate knowledge to just calculation, if memory serves me). So in natural theology (philosophy, not revelation based), we can learn a great deal about God even though we cannot fully apprehend Him. Features of the world we live in can lead us to necessary conclusions (judgments through calculation) about God. The necessity of such conclusions is not based upon the full apprehension of God but upon certain unarguable features of the world.

And you anticipate what I will now say: Aquinas gives summaries of 5 such ways in the Summa Theologica that give examples of what I am talking about.

Some of the major reasons for objecting to the possibility of necessary knowledge about reality through philosophy are: Universal Skepticism, Scientism, and Positivism–they all fail in one regard or another! We can talk about Kant also if you’d like.

But do realize that your question is a very important question. A question that incorporates thousands of years worth of philosophy and reason. Good stuff!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Shike]

For those who want the reader’s digest version of my post:

Philosophy, what Spock has already been engaging in, is one method for gaining knowledge about the supernatural.

 

[Spock]

It seems to me that the contraints that you are artifically imposing guarantees that you will not get an accepable answer.

Are those restrictions artifical? I don’t think so. I require the very same standard for any kind of claim. If the claim is about the physical reality, I demand a repeatable, objective, empirically verifyable test. If the claim is about a formal, axiomatic system, I demand the logical proof, based upon the axioms. What should I demand if the claim is about the immeasurable, immaterial “supernatural”? It cannot be masured, it is not axiomatic. That is precisely the question at hand.

Have you seen an electron? How do you know it exists?

It can be measured. Can the soul or God be measured?

God has made himself known primarly through the incarnation of Jesus. A man who lived in time, and demonstrated that He was God, and taught His disciplines how to live life to the fullest. He established an institution to continue teaching His Way.

Sorry, this is mythology. If there is a God, he can demonstrate his existence to everyone.

God’s existance can be known through the effects He causes. These can be deduced or inferred by reason.

Only if you a-priori accept that those effects were caused by God. The effects themselves do not point to any supernatural. Many people confuse “order” and “design”. Order does not require an “orderer”, but design does require a designer.

 

[Spock]

There is a method but it’s not as reliable as you might want. You need to go away with a sincere desire to learn, and study and meditate on the religious texts that have dealt with these supernatural questions. You will find that people who do this come to a range of conclusions, but these conclusions have a core set of truths which are common to most holy people.

However, there is the problem of confirmation bias. Also someone who is not inclined to believe is not likely to pursue the matter seriously. But it is a method that works.

Thanks. Again, you need to go further. How do you decide if the results of the meditation are real and valid? What are you going to compare the results of you meditation? After all “knowledge” means that our abstract mental image properly corresponds the external reality.

 

[Spock]

I think it would be important to first analyze your definition of knowledge… what constitutes knowledge? It seems that your definition is very strict and it would not depend upon the kind of subject matter one was dealing with. From speaking with you on a previous thread, I have a hunch that you take your model of knowledge from science and apply it across the board into other subject matters. Please correct me if my hunch is wrong.

My definition of knowledge is very simple, it deals with propositions. When we deal with an abstract, axiomatic system, we say that a proposition is true, if it is the logical corollary of the axioms. When we deal with external reality, we have knowledge if our mental image correctly reflects that reality. When the reality is physical, we can use the observation, testing and verification method to see if our mental model relfects reality, or not. My question is about the immaterial, unobservable, unmeasurable supernatural “reality”. What do we do then?

That said, I think knowledge can be had from revelation and testimony if you trust the source.

Well, that second-hand information is definitely inferior to the first hand one. But there is a much more serious problem with it. You simply pushed the problem “back”. How do you know if the person giving the testimony is “right”? He could very well be mistaken.

You are correct that not everyone (perhaps very few at all) has had some kind of personal revelation. I say so what. One of the reasons for the existence of the Catholic Church is to provide testimony of its revelation of Christ.

You are down to mysicism. The Church is basically a “self-proclaimed” authority, something that I do not accept - because it cannot substantiate its own “truth”. It is all “turtles all the way down”.

But one area that can give knowledge of the supernatural, of the kind that best fits your definition of knowledge, is philosophy.

Well, the problem is this: Philosophy is simply empty speculation, a few nincompoops contemplating their belly-buttons in the seclusion of their ivory tower, and making proclamations about the external reality, which they have never visited.

I recommend the introductory chapters on faith and reason in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft and Tacelli.

Ouch! I read quite a few of Kreeft’s writings, and - to say the least - I was not impressed. I think that is still an acceptable phrase to use. If I would tell my uncensored opinion, it might not be acceptable.

…Features of the world we live in can lead us to necessary conclusions (judgments through calculation) about God. The necessity of such conclusions is not based upon the full apprehension of God but upon certain unarguable features of the world.

I have seen many of these “speculations”, and all of them contained at least one logical fallacy, sometimes more than one. I read Kreeft’s 12 “proofs”, and I am still shivering from disgust.

And you anticipate what I will now say: Aquinas gives summaries of 5 such ways in the Summa Theologica that give examples of what I am talking about.

Sure. SSDD (I hope you know what that means). But suppose that there is one of these musings which really starts with a legitimate problem (which needs to be explained) and does not commit any fallacies during the way. That is still not enough. A logical deduction is only logically valid. It will become logically sound, if the premises are correct. Suppose that there is a result at the end, which follows from the premises. How do you verify the result, if the “phenomenon” cannot be observed and measured?

Some of the major reasons for objecting to the possibility of necessary knowledge about reality through philosophy are: Universal Skepticism, Scientism, and Positivism–they all fail in one regard or another! We can talk about Kant also if you’d like.

I certainly do not accept either "universal skepticism’ nor “positivism”. We are in synch in that respect.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks. Again, you need to go further. How do you decide if the results of the meditation are real and valid? What are you going to compare the results of you meditation? After all “knowledge” means that our abstract mental image properly corresponds the external reality.

You could compare your results with the results of other people. When comparing, you could give more weight to holy people based on how credible you think their stories are. If you see consistency among various holy people, you have a higher degree of certainty that there’s something to the idea. You can also use reason to test it for reasonableness.

I don’t think you can get a rock-solid answer like the scientific method gives. It’s not the same thing. But I think that’s the process many people go through to form their opinions. Some base their religious opinions more on the credibility of others, some more on their experiences in prayer. Most people don’t have as much time for prayer and they start with the religion they are familiar with and go from there.

 

[Spock]

You could compare your results with the results of other people. When comparing, you could give more weight to holy people based on how credible you think their stories are. If you see consistency among various holy people, you have a higher degree of certainty that there’s something to the idea. You can also use reason to test it for reasonableness.

Still all this is subjective. We need to assign a “credibility” factor to the witnesses - which is already subjective. The only difference is what you mentions: “reasonableness”. On that score all the claims will most probably fail, or the claims might be irrelevant. No matter, how many people will claim that they saw a rotting carcass, sitting up changing water into wine, that claim will not be reasonable. I will have to make a judgment call, “are all those people honestly claiming what they say?” or “are those people just pulling my leg?” and the second assumption will be a hands-down winner. Just look at the so-called crop-circles. Many people asserted most convincingly that they saw the result of some extraterrestrials - and there were all hoaxes

I don’t think you can get a rock-solid answer like the scientific method gives. It’s not the same thing. But I think that’s the process many people go through to form their opinions. Some base their religious opinions more on the credibility of others, some more on their experiences in prayer. Most people don’t have as much time for prayer and they start with the religion they are familiar with and go from there.

I agree with you here. My way of formuating this scenario is that “claims about the supernatural cannot be substantiated”. If one believes them, fine. There is no rational reason to believe them, however.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Still all this is subjective. We need to assign a “credibility” factor to the witnesses - which is already subjective. The only difference is what you mentions: “reasonableness”. On that score all the claims will most probably fail, or the claims might be irrelevant. No matter, how many people will claim that they saw a rotting carcass, sitting up changing water into wine, that claim will not be reasonable. I will have to make a judgment call, “are all those people honestly claiming what they say?” or “are those people just pulling my leg?” and the second assumption will be a hands-down winner. Just look at the so-called crop-circles. Many people asserted most convincingly that they saw the result of some extraterrestrials - and there were all hoaxes

I agree with you here. My way of formuating this scenario is that “claims about the supernatural cannot be substantiated”. If one believes them, fine. There is no rational reason to believe them, however.

You don’t have to use the method if you don’t want to. People make judgements about what is reasonable all the time. It’s a big part of our legal system.

I don’t think anybody is claiming that faith is knowledge. To know something is different than to believe something. If you’re not interested in pursuing the method you’ll be unable to learn about these things. It’s the only method we have.