Epistemology, the standards of truth (tradition, church, Revelation, philosophy)

[michel]

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/...-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by michel

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/...-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

Then where does faith fit in?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by nutshell

Then where does faith fit in?

Faith is the acceptence of evidence apart from logic and reasoning.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Pah

You humor is too caustic to be funny and is based on nothing.

I do not have to pick on your theology - there is no theological system that corrects the faults of tradition or revelation without trying to bring in another faulty standard.

You only need to be corrected if the cup of dogma is spilled and you get it wrong. Don't believe that can happen. So what's next?

Originally Posted by Pah

I'm surprised you made previous comments, if you didn't understand clearly. But to re-establish the topic. Tradition can not be called true nor can relevlation. Since you have called upon these two standards of truth, it is up to you to show that they are reliable.

I understood the section I responded too. But I am unsure as to how you see or understand Tradition and that is why I asked for clarification.

~Victor

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Pah

Faith is the acceptence of evidence apart from logic and reasoning.

Absolutely incorrect. Faith builds upon reason and is within the rules of logic.

~Victor

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by michel

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/...-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

The article, it seems to me, is an attempt to divorce religious belief from Epistemology. But with any discussion of truth, the standards apply

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Victor

[/color]

You only need to be corrected if the cup of dogma is spilled and you get it wrong. Don't believe that can happen. So what's next?
...
~Victor

You have to apply the standards to dogma as well. And that relies on relevaltion. Even the truth of the Bible is acheived by revelation. There is nothing religious that can claim truth except by revelation.

I should hasten to add - personal revelation

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Victor

Absolutely incorrect. Faith builds upon reason and is within the rules of logic.

~Victor

:sigh: that's not the standard definition of faith. There is absolutley no logic to the risen Christ. Logic is strained by a virgin birth.

Logic requires that all assumption be true.