Sinking, sinking, with holes in the boat. Only they without will stay afloat.
This also goes to knowing in general. What I find is that those who reject that we have a reliable, external source of revelation from God simply do not understand how this relates to their ability to know what is true or good. The person objecting to my statement seemed to think the Christian and the atheist are in the same boat.
The problem is that they simply are not. One can say that if atheism is true, then they are in the same boat in terms of knowing what is true or good (i.e., neither can); but one cannot say that, given their ultimate beliefs, they are in the same boat in terms of what they can claim. The Christian does not believe that atheism is true. Hence, what he believes is true gives him the ability to make claims about morality and truth that are consistent with his ultimate beliefs.
The atheist, however, self admittedly (although not often aware of it), does not have an ultimate belief that allows him to make claims concerning truth and morality that are consistent with his ultimate beliefs.
This person wanted to argue that the epistemic question cannot be confirmed, seemingly arguing that one must confirm things empirically, but morality can be confirmed empirically in terms of how much harm it brings to someone. One can see the cohesiveness of this argument floating away from them.
First, epistemic questions are answered in two ways: 1. One merely believes ultimate beliefs so one cannot evaluate them with some other belief, otherwise, they are not ultimate. This means that there is nothing in terms of ultimate beliefs that can be confirmed by us empirically. Empirical verificationism itself begs its ultimate beliefs, and it ends up being self-refuting if placed in that role by itself. We simply believe our starting points in terms of our metaphysics, sources of authority, etc. 2. One can weigh whether secondary beliefs, especially universal sentiments, are consistent with our ultimate beliefs. In other words, if there is a belief that we can know what is true and morally good, but we have a belief system that cannot reliably confirm what is true and morally good outside of ourselves, this shows an inconsistency that may speak to the truthfulness of one idea or the other. Either we can confirm our secondary beliefs, and therefore, make these claims over others, or we cannot due to our ultimate beliefs.
Second to this, empirical verificationism cannot be confirmed as the only way of knowing without assuming the validity of its metaphyiscal assumptions and ultimate beliefs. In essence, there is no way of arguing that empirical verificationism is reliable without begging the question as to whether empirical verificationism is reliable.
Thirdly, moving the question of morality over to what harms or whatnot is merely ignoring the question. Who is to say that the most harm is immoral? Why is it immoral to harm stardust? All sorts of questions from ultimate beliefs need to be answered before one even steps on the ground of measuring actions as moral.
Thirdly, moving the question of morality over to what harms or whatnot is merely ignoring the question. Who is to say that the most harm is immoral? Why is it immoral to harm stardust? All sorts of questions from ultimate beliefs need to be answered before one even steps on the ground of measuring actions as moral.
What this means is that the Christian's epistemology (one where both empiricism and belief in a reliable report, such as he believes the Bible is) is consistent with his claims concerning objective truth and good. The atheist's claims, however, are not. The best the atheist can do is answer, "Maybe," to every question. It is inconsistent for him to critique the Christian's view of morality or even truth claims without first establishing his own ability to make those claims in continuity with his ultimate beliefs.
So we are not in the same boat in terms of what we are claiming, not by a longshot. The atheist (or really anyone without an externally reliable source of revelation that comes from a transcendent mind), therefore, must force on others his subjective opinion, which, according to his own worldview, is merely a guess in the dark that can never be confirmed. The Christian (or anyone believing in one of the three major revelatory religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is not making the same claims. Whether his ultimate beliefs are true or not is a different question, but his ultimate beliefs allow him to make the claims that he does. One is a sinking boat and the other stays afloat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to say that these morals are objectively true within themselves, apart from God. What I mean to say is that God's character, as it is expressed toward His creation, is objective. Obviously, it's subjective to God. It isn't subjective to us. He is the standard. Nothing above Him, and nothing below Him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, God, of course, is subject to His own nature. He cannot lie. He cannot change. He cannot make a rock so big that even He cannot lift it, etc., etc.
Good, to us, does have to do with what creates and preserves covenant human life. This is beneficial to that particular group. But it is God who confirms that to us. It is God who confirms the identity of the covenant group. It is God who confirms our view of reality is correct, etc. Obviously, I think He places all of that into creation, but we have a need of being confirmed now due to our finitude and corruption.
So I don't mean to say that there is something above God, nor do I mean to say that whatever God says is good, and He can therefore make it whatever He wants. Instead, I think that whatever He declares is good is good because His nature is good, and everything He commands is an expression of His good nature.
We affirm this through belief and also scrutinizing the consistency of one's secondary beliefs about truth and good, as everyone assumes that there are objective and universal truths and morals.
Being critical of one's own epistemology won't bring someone to Christ, but being uncritical of it will not help either. It stands as a wall to understanding. Many Christians themselves end up in apostasy because they don't understand their own epistemology. It becomes extremely important when discussing anything if we want our conversations to go anywhere. I would argue that one does not truly have a Christian worldview, and therefore, does not fully have Christ as Lord, until he adopts the right epistemology. Otherwise, other authorities are placed above or equal to the Word of God, and we often end up adopting unbiblical ideas from alternate sources.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn unbeliever can always find a way to rebel, but his epistemology is going to lead him to the same irrational position. He can posit no god, a finite god, etc. He ends up the in the same place. The Christian is not in that same position, and so, his position is more reasonable. Nihilism or revelation from an omniscient mind are the only options.
ReplyDeleteSo I completely reject the idea that he can just sidestep to another non-revelatory position and somehow slide out of the problem I've posed above. He can guess at whatever view of god he wants: atheism, polytheism, where god is a finite demiurge (even the Gnostics claimed they knew this because of higher revelation, otherwise they couldn't say anything about deity at all). Whatever position an atheist wants to posit, he's still left with guessing in the dark without the possibility of knowledge. He does not know what God is like or whether God exists or not. He does not know what is good or true. He can believe a starting point, as we all must, but his starting point does not allow him to go any further with knowledge.
My point is not that I can prove Christianity is true. My point is that Christianity has an epistemology that allows for knowledge, whether it is true or not. The atheist's epistemology does not allow him that. His epistemology is self-admittedly incapable of knowing.
I simply, therefore, do not see the problems you've posited above as problems to what I've said, as most of the world claims that they know all sorts of things, and yet, want to claim a worldview that carries an epistemology that does not allow for knowledge. The only thing the objection above does is posit another worldview that does not allow for knowledge.
In other words, the only thing the above objection does is speculate as to whether a particular worldview might be true, but that's a different question than I am addressing. I am addressing the question as to what epistemology allows for knowledge. The Christian does not believe in the Demiurge, so that's not an issue for his consistency in making dogmatic claims about truth and morality. The atheist, or any non-revelatory view, is, therefore, less reasonable, since reason requires knowledge.
What this means is that the atheist, or any non-revelatory view like liberal Christianity, is incapable of critiquing orthodox Christianity or its statements concerning truth and morality. It should always just say, "Maybe."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe postmodernists are certainly consistent in their philosophical works in terms of the moral outcome of modernity. They certainly are not in what they presume to be true in order to make arguments about truth and morality however. It's all very self-defeating. Whether anyone really can be consistent even in terms of moral value or knowledge claims in real life is something I very much doubt. Hence, since people already believe they have knowledge and that there is such a thing as good and evil, it's valuable to discuss with them where all of that comes from and how their worldview would impact the consistency of their secondary beliefs. Either way, however, everyone of these is an amoralist philosopher until someone pushes him down and steals his wallet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSee, in so far as I think I know of Reid's position (and that isn't all that much), I would reject it. What he seems to argue is against my whole point. Knowledge of external reality is not possible without confirmation of a metaphysic. Reid assumes a Cartesian understanding of knowledge. I reject it. In fact, I think it is self-evidently unverifiable. How does one disprove a Hindu worldview without first proving common sense realism? And how is it proven without assuming it via faith? And what is that faith based in besides guessing in the dark? All then is belief with that epistemology. Nothing is knowledge in the sense that belief is confirmed. My point is that the Christian starts with belief and can end in knowledge (i.e., confirmed beliefs if his worldview is true). Reid's view does not allow him to have knowledge at all, as his view cannot be confirmed outside of himself. In that regard, Hume understood more than he did.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Gordon Clark in his critiques along those lines. https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/elements-of-gordon-clarks-theory-of-knowledge/
To sum up, the believer and the unbeliever both start with belief in their sources of authority. The unbeliever admits he does not believe there is a report that would confirm his view of reality, and this leaves him with experiencing reality/confirming it on his own. He is not omniscient so he cannot confirm the nature of reality on his own. Hence, he cannot empirically justify his view, nor justify it on the basis of an authoritative report from an omniscient source that would confirm it. Because of this, everything that follows from his view of reality is unconfirmed beliefs and speculation. For the Christian who believes in a reliable revelation, however, a confirmed knowledge of reality is possible because he has a report from an omniscient source who knows the nature of reality. From that foundation, he can then proceed to acquire knowledge confirmed both empirically and via report.
Again, maybe the average Joe doesn't care, but to bring it back to my FB conversation, obviously the person cared about making dogmatic moral claims and knowledge claims that would ground their morality. They are just left with a dilemma if they reject the idea that God has revealed the nature of reality to humans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, got it. I appreciate the clarification on Reid's philosophy. I seemed to have misunderstood him then (although I do think that to say that something is pragmatic also assumes an unconfirmed nature of reality). Having said that, however, I think we're talking past each other.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the unbeliever is just trading one group of unconfirmed assumptions for another group of unconfirmed assumptions that the Christian holds is what I am saying is false. We're not in the same boat in terms of our epistemology.
The believer initially believes a source of authority that enables him to have knowledge, i.e., confirmed beliefs. Everyone believes all sorts of things, but whether the belief is confirmed and consistent with the initial starting point is what I would consider knowledge. The one who has revelation believes in an initial report that he thinks is from an omniscient being. This confirms his assumption of the nature of reality that then allows him to go on and confirm other beliefs via that report or empirical verification. He is not assuming everything, but rather assuming his starting point (i.e., that the revelatory report is reliable). From there, he can confirm all of his other beliefs, and therefore, achieve knowledge.
The unbeliever is not in the same position. His assumptions/beliefs forever and always just remain guesses. In other words, his worldview does not allow him to know ANYTHING. He, self-admittedly, does not believe in a report from an omniscient being (it doesn't matter whether he argues that God may not know whether he is omniscient, or that God is deceived, or that God doesn't exist at all--these are all more guesses). Since he cannot have anything confirmed, either via belief in a revelatory report or empirically (since empiricism must be confirmed by an omniscient source), then EVERYTHING he believes is unconfirmed belief and not knowledge.
So we are not in the same boat. You keep bringing up this objection that one could argue that God may not know whether He knows, or whether He's deceived, and whatnot, and I keep trying to tell you that this is irrelevant to what I am arguing. I'm not arguing what actually exists. I am arguing that, given the original starting point of one's knowledge, the belief that an omniscient being (whether he really exists in reality or not) allows for a consistency that one can have knowledge, i.e., confirmed beliefs. Rejection of that initial belief in such a report leads to the inability to have confirmed beliefs, i.e., knowledge, and therefore, leads to a view where one cannot know anything. The Christian, therefore, is not in the same boat as the unbeliever, whether he is right about God in reality or not.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, my argument is not about what is actually correct. My argument concerns consistency. Knowledge is possible only when omniscience is the starting point, since only an omniscient mind knows the true nature of reality. Hence, one not only needs an omniscient being for knowledge to be possible, but he also needs that being to have communicated sufficiently to confirm the nature of reality.
The unbeliever can stumble upon the true nature of reality, but he can never know that he has. That's my point. Nothing can be confirmed in such a worldview. Only in a worldview where one believes he has a reliable revelation from an omniscient source is knowledge possible.
Now, if there is no such revelation in reality, and these reports are false, then we are all in the same boat in terms of true reality (i.e., no one really knows anything), but not in terms of our epistemology, since the Christian's epistemology assumes the knowledge of an omniscient being as the starting point.
Acknowledging this means that anyone claiming to know anything must grapple with the fact that he must assume a position that only one with a reliable revelation from an omniscient source assumes. In other words, he is believing the Christian's worldview/starting point already. He just wants to use that starting point to then deny it, which is self-defeating. Since most people believe that knowledge is possible that means that they need to reconcile that with any rejection of the idea that we have a reliable revelation from an omniscient source. This is the conundrum of the unbeliever, but not the believer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGotcha. I'll have to read up more on Reid.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think we get each other's argument now. I absolutely do not think that anything that demands the unbeliever submit to Christ is appealing to him, logic included. But I do think that many don't want to appear illogical either, so they attempt to tie logic to something like scientific empiricism, like this person in the conversation on FB did. Of course, my only point is that any sort of knowledge cannot be had in such position. What I really want to say is that the unbeliever is only left with the option of complete delusional arrogance in claiming to know something only an omniscient being can know or to give up their unbelief and submit in humility to a revelatory report that claims to be from an omniscient being. So a claim that calls the unbeliever arrogant and delusional, along with a call to become humble and repent, won't be appealing to him, but I do think it begins to move into the gospel in which God regenerates the rebel and causes the truth to become more appealing to him than his delusions.
In other words, it's basically like telling someone he's a sinner. It's not appealing to him. It's just laying out his predicament as a precursor to understanding his need to be restored to God through the gospel of Christ witnessed by the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete