Supernatural epistemology?

[samiam1611]

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)?

Great question. I think you already know the answer bc you asked it and answered it yourself.

Of what I have read of the Catechism, this line in particular made me laugh.

37 “…human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God…”

It goes on to say that we are in need of being enlightened by revelation and faith in order to welcome this revelation. Too true. Without faith, belief in a personal God is not reasonable.

 

[Shike]

My definition of knowledge is very simple, it deals with propositions.

And that is okay, knowledge of propositions is very important. But knowledge of propositions (judgments) is not the only kind of knowledge. I take some form of an essentialism to be true, and therefore apprehension of essences is another form of knowledge.

 But looking closer, you divide the kinds of knowledge into two kinds of propositions: philosophical ones which must be the result of an axiomatic system that doesn't touch reality (or if it does we cannot prove it) and physical ones which must be the result of observation and science. You seem to think that only propositions matter. In fact, if you acknowledged how the mind comes to know instead of merely what it knows, you would realize that science is not coextensive with experience (which seems to me is how you treat the word “observation”).

 Exhibit A: we can call it the pre-scientific. What are the foundations of science? What has to be true in order for science to work? In order for people to pursue science? It is rational to ask such questions; there are rational answers to these questions not based on science.

How do you know if the person giving the testimony is “right”? He could very well be mistaken.

True, testimony is based upon the character of the one telling it. Are they trustworthy? What other things does that person tell you? Are they true?

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”.

It may be fun to say what you say but it is clear you do not understand. Why do you trust your parents? Why do you trust anyone? If your epistemology only gives room for propositions then it seems to me that you can’t really trust the character of an individual. For me it has been a host of things the Church has said that I found to be true, whether that be some moral pronouncement and some of the reasons associated with it or the nature of man and the world… to even my experience with the sacraments of the Church. It is a growing relationship.

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.

And this my friend is a philosophical claim. A bad one at that, but philosophical nonetheless.

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.

I only suggested a section of the book; disregard it if you don’t like his writing.

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?

And would you like to deny the existence of the world, or change, or the reality of contingent beings (definition properly understood, of course)? Because these are the kinds of premises Aquinas’ arguments are based upon. The verification of the results of for instance Aquinas’ proofs are that they are logically valid and that the premises are true. Who said that you have to have scientific observation to confirm a proposition about the world? Can you use science to prove the law of non-contradiction? Are you willing to deny that the law of non-contradiction applies to all of reality and not just our epistemology?

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

Well that is very good.

 

[Spock]

And that is okay, knowledge of propositions is very important.

We have a misunderstanding here. All knowledge is expressed as propositions. A proposition is a lingustical structure, either uttered (speach) or internal (thought).

But knowledge of propositions (judgments) is not the only kind of knowledge. I take some form of an essentialism to be true, and therefore apprehension of essences is another form of knowledge.

Sorry, no idea what that means.

But looking closer, you divide the kinds of knowledge into two kinds of propositions: philosophical ones which must be the result of an axiomatic system that doesn’t touch reality (or if it does we cannot prove it) and physical ones which must be the result of observation and science. You seem to think that only propositions matter.

Again we have a misunderstanding. I am asking about the third possible type, which proclaims a knowledge about a third type of “existence”, the supernatural one. I am trying to learn if there is an epistemology pertaining this “third” type of existence.

Exhibit A: we can call it the pre-scientific. What are the foundations of science? What has to be true in order for science to work? In order for people to pursue science? It is rational to ask such questions; there are rational answers to these questions not based on science.

Indeed. They all started with observations. People observed clouds (for example) and then hypothesized that rain will follow. Most of the time they were right, other time they were wrong.

True, testimony is based upon the character of the one telling it. Are they trustworthy? What other things does that person tell you? Are they true?

Oh, sure, all that helps. But none of the honesty of the witness is safeguard against a genuine error.

It may be fun to say what you say but it is clear you do not understand. Why do you trust your parents? Why do you trust anyone? If your epistemology only gives room for propositions then it seems to me that you can’t really trust the character of an individual.

But, of course I can trust the person’s charcter. Yet that trust does not protect me from the person’s genuine error. That is why testimonial evidence is always inferior. Sometimes we must rely on it, since direct observation is impossible, but we must be cognizant of the fact that it can be in error.

For me it has been a host of things the Church has said that I found to be true, whether that be some moral pronouncement and some of the reasons associated with it or the nature of man and the world… to even my experience with the sacraments of the Church. It is a growing relationship.

Sure thing. But that still does not make sure that the Church is “infallible”. It may claim so, but claims are dimes a dozen. And, as far as I am concerned, the Church has committed many errors.

And this my friend is a philosophical claim. A bad one at that, but philosophical nonetheless.

Sorry, it is a META-philosophical claim!!! Huge difference.

And would you like to deny the existence of the world, or change, or the reality of contingent beings (definition properly understood, of course)? Because these are the kinds of premises Aquinas’ arguments are based upon. The verification of the results of for instance Aquinas’ proofs are that they are logically valid and that the premises are true. Who said that you have to have scientific observation to confirm a proposition about the world? Can you use science to prove the law of non-contradiction? Are you willing to deny that the law of non-contradiction applies to all of reality and not just our epistemology?

I read all of them. If you wish to bing up one at a time, I am willing to get into the details. But none of them is pertinent to theis thread.

 

[Heuchler]

You don’t accept the fact that we can only know about God through him revealing himself? Oh well. Well, the way you can tell is by arguments for the existence of God. But it seems you don’t believe in the spirit. I guess that would be easy if you were a man of science. God and the soul are not made of matter. You can’t measure or perceive the immaterial. Sorry. The only way we have ever noticed these beings is because they decided to show themselves to us. But these spirits act with purpose and don’t visit everyone. So, the only way we could know about them is through their interactions or by believing what others tell us. So, I’m sorry, you won’t find any other way to prove the spirit just like I can’t prove to someone there are liquids without showing them one.

 

[Shike]

We have a misunderstanding here. All knowledge is expressed as propositions. A proposition is a lingustical structure, either uttered (speach) or internal (thought).

Yes, instead of saying knowledge of propositions it is better to say propositional knowledge. My mistake.

Indeed. They all started with observations. People observed clouds (for example) and then hypothesized that rain will follow. Most of the time they were right, other time they were wrong.

But were they wrong that there actually were clouds? For Aquinas to be wrong, he has to be wrong about something like reality existing or that change is real.

Sure thing. But that still does not make sure that the Church is “infallible”. It may claim so, but claims are dimes a dozen. And, as far as I am concerned, the Church has committed many errors.

If you saw the Church coming from God you would see that such a testimony is actually the strongest because of who God is. But this is off-topic.

Sorry, it is a META-philosophical claim!!! Huge difference.

That’s just nonsense. A “meta-philosophical” claim is still philosophy. There’s nothing that different about it that would merit it a distinct category.

So to sum things up so far: you post a question with your mind already made up with no apparent evidence of genuine openness… about what guarantees knowledge of the supernatural. My answer: philosophy is one way. There you go.

Until you see that your division of propositional knowledge is faulty, there isn’t much more I can say on my side of things.

Again, what are the foundations of scientific inquiry? What has to be true in order for science to work and exist?

 

[levinas12]

… 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.

Of course, there are other categories of claims which you don’t address here.

For example, what “epistemology” would you use to interpret a poem, or explain an historical event, or evaluate a painting, or even to get the point of a joke …

I don’t mean to get off topic … but this is the tack that Wittgenstein (W) took to demolish the “epistemology” of the logical positivists (which appears to be close to your epistemology) …

I wonder how you would respond, in particular, to W’s notion of “language games” …

 

[davidv]

Are those restrictions artifical? I don’t think so.

Of course you don’t think so. You proposed them.

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.

If something isn’t material, demanding that it be measured emperically is irrational.

It can be measured.

How? Has anyone put one one a scale? Or has anyone directly measured its volume?

Can the soul or God be measured?

Yes, the same way an electron is measured. By its effects on things around it.

Sorry, this is mythology.

Do you have any believable evidence for this claim?

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

He has. You have rejected the demonstations based on your view of reality. Why is your view the most accurate?

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.

 

[awatkins69]

“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.”

Or what? The claim is meaningless, or we can’t have rational justification for the claim? Just trying to see what you are saying, but I think it is one or the other. If our statements are meaningless if not verifiable empirically, then they can’t have or lack rational justification, due to their being meaningless. If they are just epistemically unwarranted but capable of having epistemic warrant, then they’re not meaningless.

I think Shike and Levinas seem to be on the right track. The idea would be that we do philosophy. Say what you will about it; we agree it’s not science, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate, just non-science. But you have your answer as to how it would hypothetically work. In particular, with regard to matters of natural theology, we can deduce our conclusions from propositions about the general nature of reality. For example, here are a few. Call the following the set of propositions A:

• There are no gods, spirits, or immaterial minds.
• Gods, spirits, or immaterial minds cannot exist.
• The universe is causally closed and there are no miraculous events.
• There is a world which exists whether or not we believe it exists.
• Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
• Some things can come to exist out of nothing
• Nothing can come to exist out of nothing.
• Some things change and remain the same objects throughout their change.

Presumably you accept at least a few of these propositions. These propositions belong to the field of philosophy called metaphysics. In support of theism we might assert two metaphysical premises such as these:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe (defined as the totality of space, time, energy, and matter) began to exist.
And derive from these by the rules of logic:
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

Accept or deny the premises, but they are either true or not true. We can infer that the cause has some of the attributes in this way, by more logical rules:

Suppose that
(1*) The external cause of the universe is material or in time.
Now, we said that the universe is the totality of space, time, energy, and matter. Hence,
(2*) Whatever is material or in time is a part of the universe.
Therefore,
(3*) The external cause of the universe is a part of the universe.
But this is plainly contradictory; how can the external cause of the universe be a part of the universe? Since this is a contradiction it follows
(4*) The external cause of the universe is neither material nor in time.

My point isn’t to start an argument about whether the argument’s premises are true. It’s simply to show you how it works, since you’re asking. And there you go, we’ve just proven an immaterial and timeless cause with some rather weak principles about the general structure of reality. Now my question is: What are you saying? That general principles like these are not knowable insofar as they can’t have epistemic justification, or that they are meaningless?

I don’t think it can be the former. Even you accept some general principles about reality, I would contend. For instance, some of those contained in our set A. Also, the fact that these arguments might work is because you believe metaphysical propositions about systems of logic: that classical logic, for instance, maps onto the structure of reality; if you accept rules such as ~(p&~p) and use them in your proofs, and expect them to bring you to true results given the premises, this is because you believe this system of logic accurately models what the world is like. And that’s a grand proposition indeed!

But then our metaphysical propositions can’t be simply unknowable epistemically speaking. After all, we do know some, either materialist or “supernatural” ones, as well as propositions about the relationship between certain logics and reality. So they aren’t unknowable. Hence, according to you they must be meaningless. But I don’t think they’re meaningless. We know them, so they can’t be meaningless.

Now, it’s an interesting question as to how we know these general propositions about reality. However, I’ve written enough as it is, so that now there’s something to chew on. Hence I won’t go on and explain my “meta-metaphysics.” However, I hope that I’ve at least explained the general route which one would hypothetically take in order to carry out some sort of natural theology.

I also think there’s something to be said for religious experiences, but I won’t go into that. Sorry if I don’t come into the discussion again and this is all I have to say. I’m actually in school now, so I don’t have all that much leisure time. If I do reply again it will probably be on the weekend, and even then I will likely be discouraged to reply due to the fact that this thread will have grown to be seven pages larger. I tend to be less than consistent with these forums unfortunately, so I hope that if I leave for another three months or whatever, you’ll at least find something interesting in the little essay I’ve gone on and written for you.

 

[Spock]

You don’t accept the fact that we can only know about God through him revealing himself? Oh well.

Sorry, it is the Catholic Church that asserts otherwise. It is one of the dogmas, that we can “know” God’s existence (even if not the details) by reason alone, without resorting to faith.

Well, the way you can tell is by arguments for the existence of God. But it seems you don’t believe in the spirit. I guess that would be easy if you were a man of science. God and the soul are not made of matter. You can’t measure or perceive the immaterial. Sorry. The only way we have ever noticed these beings is because they decided to show themselves to us. But these spirits act with purpose and don’t visit everyone. So, the only way we could know about them is through their interactions or by believing what others tell us. So, I’m sorry, you won’t find any other way to prove the spirit just like I can’t prove to someone there are liquids without showing them one.

And I already stated my problem with these two approaches. They do not manifest themselves to me. By the way, how could they, unless they transform into a physical form, and then they would be subject to observation and measurement? And why should I accept the testimonials of others, who can be clearly mistaken? Besides the testimonial would only push the problem back. How did those who supposedly had the revelation know that it was a real revelation and not just a bad dream?

The major problem with revelation is that the alleged supernatural entity MUST transform into something physical, otherwise we could not perceive it.

 

[joshrp]

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)?

Well, you can start by focusing on what ISN’T true. You can also know what you don’t know. You get closer to the truth by eliminating possiblities that prove themselves to be false when taken under examination.

You can’t really know what God is. But you can know what he isn’t. It’s called negative or apophatic theology. It’s is the only form of religious or spiritual knowledge there is. That’s the only form of epistemology that is reliable when you are talking about religion or revelation.

 

[Spock]

So to sum things up so far: you post a question with your mind already made up with no apparent evidence of genuine openness… about what guarantees knowledge of the supernatural. My answer: philosophy is one way. There you go.

And my question is still: how? How can you prove that your speculation properly reflects the supernatural? Mind you, the question is much wider than speaking about God’s existence. It encompasses propositions like: “the angels had a one-shot free will, and when they made their choice, their free will disappeared”. How can your philosophy answer a question like that?

Even if one of the so-called philosophical “proofs” with be proper, it would only present a faceless “first cause”, which is a very far cry from the asserted personal creator. How do propose to get to the description of “heaven” and “hell” using philosophy alone? I am really curious.

 

[joshrp]

Wow, I’m reading the response to you post and no one really seems to know how to answer your question but me. Read Nicholas of Cusa. He’s the best theologian I know besides Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[Spock]

Of course, there are other categories of claims which you don’t address here.

For example, what “epistemology” would you use to interpret a poem, or explain an historical event, or evaluate a painting, or even to get the point of a joke …

I don’t mean to get off topic … but this is the tack that Wittgenstein (W) took to demolish the “epistemology” of the logical positivists (which appears to be close to your epistemology) …

I wonder how you would respond, in particular, to W’s notion of “language games” …

A poem or a musical piece or a painting has no objective meaning. It is all opinion, it is all about emotions. One man loves Wagner, the other one cannot stand it. The question of “which opinion is right?” does not even come up.

A historical event is a very different problem, of course. Since there is no way to examine the event by ourselves, we must resort to testimonials. But that is not relevant in this respect. Supposedly the supernatural exists NOW. There is no need to resort to dubious testimonials.

(And, no, I am not a logical positivist, not even close.)

 

[joshrp]

A poem or a musical piece or a painting has no objective meaning. It is all opinion, it is all about emotions. One man loves Wagner, the other one cannot stand it. The question of “which opinion is right?” does not even come up.

A historical event is a very different problem, of course. Since there is no way to examine the event by ourselves, we must resort to testimonials. But that is not relevant in this respect. Supposedly the supernatural exists NOW. There is no need to resort to dubious testimonials.

(And, no, I am not a logical positivist, not even close.)

I think it is an insult to tell people what you think. I only tell people what I know. If I accidentally tell someone what I think, I apologize and take it back.

 

[Spock]

If something isn’t material, demanding that it be measured emperically is irrational.

It would be if I asked for that. But I do not. I am asking what kind of a method do you propose to differentiate between a true and false statement about the supernatural? For example: a proposition about the supernatural would be: “there are demons”. Can you propose a method, which I can execute and see that proposition is true or not?

 

[joshrp]

Did you read my post? I answered you question.

 

[Spock]

Or what? The claim is meaningless, or we can’t have rational justification for the claim? Just trying to see what you are saying, but I think it is one or the other.

Either one or both, depending on the subject.

In support of theism we might assert two metaphysical premises such as these:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe (defined as the totality of space, time, energy, and matter) began to exist.
And derive from these by the rules of logic:
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

Accept or deny the premises, but they are either true or not true.

This is a good example of a logically valid argument. Since both of the premises are unsubstantiated speculations, it is not a logically sound argument.

My point isn’t to start an argument about whether the argument’s premises are true. It’s simply to show you how it works, since you’re asking.

That is very well, but unless the premises are correct, all you have is a logically valid argument.

Suppose that
(1*) The external cause of the universe is material or in time.
Now, we said that the universe is the totality of space, time, energy, and matter. Hence,
(2*) Whatever is material or in time is a part of the universe.
Therefore,
(3*) The external cause of the universe is a part of the universe.
But this is plainly contradictory; how can the external cause of the universe be a part of the universe? Since this is a contradiction it follows
(4*) The external cause of the universe is neither material nor in time.

The problem is already in (1*). It is meaningless proposition, since causation, matter and time only exist within the universe, they cannot be applied to the universe.

But then our metaphysical propositions can’t be simply unknowable epistemically speaking.

Absolutely true, if you speak of basic propositions. The basic propositions cannot be reduced to something “more basic”. They must be accepted as self-evident. Just like the axioms in any formal system.

In the physical world we have a few basic principles, like the conservation of matter / energy / momentum, or that the universe exhibits order, etc… all these principles are derived after millions of observations.

In the formal systems, the axioms are stipulated to be true. We could choose any set of axioms if we wish to, and as long as they are not mutually contradictory, we can decide about a propostion if it is true or false (or neither).

What about the supernatural? What are the basic, self-evident propositions about that? What are they based upon? Not observations, obviously. Some people say that God is “self-evident”. How could it be self-evident, if millions of people disagree? Is there anything “self-evident” about the supernatural, which could be used as a foundation? That is my question, again.

 

[joshrp]

Euclidean epistemology is completely useless when it comes to matters of religion.

If you want to know something, you have to study Riemann, and his epistemology.

The universe is not based on axioms. It is based on principles.

 

[Spock]

Well, you can start by focusing on what ISN’T true. You can also know what you don’t know. You get closer to the truth by eliminating possiblities that prove themselves to be false when taken under examination.

You can’t really know what God is. But you can know what he isn’t. It’s called negative or apophatic theology. It’s is the only form of religious or spiritual knowledge there is. That’s the only form of epistemology that is reliable when you are talking about religion or revelation.

That does not work. If there are no positive attributes, then the posited entity cannot be differentiated from nonexistence. God is limitless - so is nonexistence.

But I am asking for much more. Take any proposition about angels, demons, spirits, souls, heaven, hell, the choir of the angels, the eternal fire in hell that cannot be quenched, etc… what have you… is there a way to decide if these propositions are true or false?

 

[joshrp]

Either one or both, depending on the subject.

This is a good example of a logically valid argument. Since both of the premises are unsubstantiated speculations, it is not a logically sound argument.

That is very well, but unless the premises are correct, all you have is a logically valid argument.

The problem is already in (1*). It is meaningless proposition, since causation, matter and time only exist within the universe, they cannot be applied to the universe.

Absolutely true, if you speak of basic propositions. The basic propositions cannot be reduced to something “more basic”. They must be accepted as self-evident. Just like the axioms in any formal system.

In the physical world we have a few basic principles, like the conservation of matter / energy / momentum, or that the universe exhibits order, etc… all these principles are derived after millions of observations.

In the formal systems, the axioms are stipulated to be true. We could choose any set of axioms if we wish to, and as long as they are not mutually contradictory, we can decide about a propostion if it is true or false (or neither).

What about the supernatural? What are the basic, self-evident propositions about that? What are they based upon? Not observations, obviously. Some people say that God is “self-evident”. How could it be self-evident, if millions of people disagree? Is there anything “self-evident” about the supernatural, which could be used as a foundation? That is my question, again.

Nothing is self-evident. You have to construct a proof of principle. This needs irony. This needs metaphor. You can’t prove anything without these three things.