Faith as epistemology ?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Epistemology, in a nutshell - The field of philosophy dealing with knowledge, and how it is acquired. What can we know? How can we know it? How can we separate 'knowledge' from mere opinion?

Truth naturally flows from other truth. But in order to get started, some truths must be taken apriori. Statements such as 'everything exists' , 'water is wet', circles are round, etc are structured so as to be self evident. That is, one must except them as true right off the bat.

From such apriori truths, through the use of logic and deduction, more truths can flow. 'water is wet, this lake is full of water, therefore this lake is wet.' Or 'If X then Y, X, therefore Y' This is known as a logical syllogism, and is one sure method of extrapolating knowledge.

Another syllogism that will always yield true results is as follows 'If x, then y. Not y. Therefore not x.' For example - 'Water is wet. This lake is not wet, therefore it is not full of water'

It must be noted that neither of these methods work in reverse. for instance the formula 'X then Y, Y, therefore X' can be used to show the existence of god, Hercules or the loch-ness monster. This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. An example often offered up by creationists - If God created the universe, we would see order in nature. We do in fact see order in the universe , Therefore, God must have created the universe.” This is not at all logical: The order in the universe could have another cause. Or more transparently - "all living humans have heartbeats. Spot the dog has a heartbeat, therefore spot the dog is human!. This is obviously problematic.

There are many other sound forms of epistemology, the previous paragraphs serve as merely an example of what knowledge is and how it is acquired. Now here is the meat and potatoes - Often it is said that one can KNOW through FAITH.

In what sense can faith be considered valid epistemology? What are the 'nuts and bolts', so to speak, and how do they fit together?

 

[linwood]

In what sense can faith be considered valid epistemology? What are the 'nuts and bolts', so to speak, and how do they fit together?

I consider the idea that faith can be used as a source of objective knowledge to be a logical fallacy in itself.

The very definition of "faith" negates it`s use as a tool for discovery.

 

[fallingblood]

There lies one fault in your argument, the definition of know. To know something does not necessarily mean that what is known is a fact. Christians know that God exists; however, the majority of them will concede to the fact that they can't prove he exists. They know through faith.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well that is the whole point of the thread. Epistemology deals with HOW we can know things. If faith is valid epistemology, how does it work?

The problem is that if there are no qualitative differences in how one can know through faith, how can one know WHAT to have faith in?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Someone out there must believe you can attain knowledge through faith! Or is the day of the honestly faithful believer behind us?

 

[dust1n]

Interesting thread; since I agree with you on the point you are trying to make, there isn't much to add on to. Well stated.

 

[footprints]

Someone out there must believe you can attain knowledge through faith! Or is the day of the honestly faithful believer behind us?

All knowledge is obtained through faith, be this in the positive or negative direction. Then held in place, by faith, until such time as greater knowledge replaces it, before strapping it back in with faith again. Faith has incidences of greater or lesser degrees stemming from pure Blind Faith (instant acceptance), to Negative Blind Faith (instant denial).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, that's a nice collection of assertions you have gathered there.Are you really saying that no knowledge can be gained through standardly accepted forms of epistemology, and instead all new information is gained through faith? I would be quite interested in seeing you try to support that one.



Since you believe you can acquire new knowledge through faith, perhaps you could answer this? The previous contestant seems to have bowed out.

Well that is the whole point of the thread. Epistemology deals with HOW we can know things. If faith is valid epistemology, how does it work?

The problem is that if there are no qualitative differences in how one can know through faith, how can one know WHAT to have faith in?

 

[footprints]

Well, that's a nice collection of assertions you have gathered there.Are you really saying that no knowledge can be gained through standardly accepted forms of epistemology, and instead all new information is gained through faith? I would be quite interested in seeing you try to support that one.



Since you believe you can acquire new knowledge through faith, perhaps you could answer this? The previous contestant seems to have bowed out.

Please make it clear to who you are talking to, it makes it hard if you do not address the person.

Simply put Descartes has been about the closest to this knowledge than any other philosopher before or after. Knowledge is accumulated through the body senses, further knowledge is gained when this data is manipulated by human intelligence. Couple all this together and we have human life experience.

The Human brain can only do three things with knowledge. It can accept the knowledge gained. It can reject the knowledge gained. Or it can hold it at a level between the two extremes to a greater or lesser degree. Faith in either the postive or negative content is what gives the knowledge its postive or negative edge, and it is faith which keeps it in place, when others oppose it, or agree with it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Sorry, it seemed to me the fact I had quoted your text, and the fact that you were directly above me and were the only poster to take issue since my last post, it should be fairly obvious who I was addressing. I supose some are more easily confused than others

But seriously, you have completely missed the boat here. How the human brain deals with knowledge after the fact isn't the topic. The topic is how do we distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge, which is the meaning of epistemology, and does faith qualify as epistemology.

Do you think it does? Can you know through faith? If so, what is the qualitative standard to distinguish 'good' faith(that leads to truth) from bad faith(that leads away from truth)?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me knowledge comes to us only through the senses. It can then be rearranged by us, but no genuinely new knowledge is produced by us that is not derived from the senses. As for the notion that faith might be a means to knowledge, that would need to be shown in some detail for it to be other than absurd.

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me knowledge comes to us only through the senses. It can then be rearranged by us, but no genuinely new knowledge is produced by us that is not derived from the senses. As for the notion that faith might be a means to knowledge, that would need to be shown in some detail for it to be other than absurd.

I totally support this epistemology, though I disagree.

 

[footprints]

Sorry, it seemed to me the fact I had quoted your text, and the fact that you were directly above me and were the only poster to take issue since my last post, it should be fairly obvious who I was addressing. I supose some are more easily confused than others

What seems to you and what seems to others can be two different things. You have already confused Riverwolf in another thread due to this action, even though you clearly stated to Riverwolf you always make it clear to whom you are talking. Clearly a delusion on your behalf, for even the post from you, which was answered, wasn't addressed to anybody and it wasn't clear who you were talking to as it related to many posts. You keep proving yourself wrong in this thread too.

But seriously, you have completely missed the boat here. How the human brain deals with knowledge after the fact isn't the topic. The topic is how do we distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge, which is the meaning of epistemology, and does faith qualify as epistemology.

I doubt that I have clearly missed the boat. I do not carry ridiculous analogies as they pertain to philosophy.

Non-knowledge is a logical fallacy. Another delusion of philosophy and why so many miss the boat.

Epistemology is the questioning of knowledge. What is knowledge. How is knowledge gained, et al. Neuroscience, Psychology, Behavioural Science et al have already answered these questions, and we are well on the way to knowing how, why and where the knowledge is stored in the brain.

Without faith, knowledge wouldn't be stored in the brain in the first place. It wouldn't be taken in. It is equivalent to talking to a person in a daydream, it would go in one ear and out the other, their daydream would be given the higher authority. Of course, when the faith of belief turned to interest, they would take in every word.

Do you think it does? Can you know through faith? If so, what is the qualitative standard to distinguish 'good' faith(that leads to truth) from bad faith(that leads away from truth)?

We can only know through faith. It is an imposibility to know any other way. The brain either accepts or rejects knowledge and we have faith in our capablity to discern this accept and reject capability.

Truth is perception based. Please define good faith that leads to truth, and please define bad faith that leads away from truth.

I put it to you, good truth to you, is that which aligns with your faith of belief, and bad faith to you, is that which opposes your personal faith of belief. Just like you clearly told Riverwolf, you always make it clear of who you post to, which is clearly a delusion on your behalf, for your truth of belief turns out to be a logical fallacy.

Truth is perception based.

 

[Troublemane]

Logic has been demonstrated incomplete as a means of knowledge, I think, many many times. The whole Goedel's Proof is pretty well known.

Logic is incapable of describing certain real life experience and important scientific theories such as quantum field theory, or relativity. Those require higher-order thinking which transcend logic. So does spirituality. Therefore, the argument that logic can either prove or disprove the existence of God has been abandoned by everybody since the 19th century.

Sorry dude, this thread has arrived 100 years too late.

 

[Dunemeister]

Epistemology, in a nutshell - The field of philosophy dealing with knowledge, and how it is acquired. What can we know? How can we know it? How can we separate 'knowledge' from mere opinion?

Truth naturally flows from other truth. But in order to get started, some truths must be taken apriori. Statements such as 'everything exists' , 'water is wet', circles are round, etc are structured so as to be self evident. That is, one must except them as true right off the bat.

From such apriori truths, through the use of logic and deduction, more truths can flow. 'water is wet, this lake is full of water, therefore this lake is wet.' Or 'If X then Y, X, therefore Y' This is known as a logical syllogism, and is one sure method of extrapolating knowledge.

Another syllogism that will always yield true results is as follows 'If x, then y. Not y. Therefore not x.' For example - 'Water is wet. This lake is not wet, therefore it is not full of water'

It must be noted that neither of these methods work in reverse. for instance the formula 'X then Y, Y, therefore X' can be used to show the existence of god, Hercules or the loch-ness monster. This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. An example often offered up by creationists - If God created the universe, we would see order in nature. We do in fact see order in the universe , Therefore, God must have created the universe.” This is not at all logical: The order in the universe could have another cause. Or more transparently - "all living humans have heartbeats. Spot the dog has a heartbeat, therefore spot the dog is human!. This is obviously problematic.

There are many other sound forms of epistemology, the previous paragraphs serve as merely an example of what knowledge is and how it is acquired. Now here is the meat and potatoes - Often it is said that one can KNOW through FAITH.

In what sense can faith be considered valid epistemology? What are the 'nuts and bolts', so to speak, and how do they fit together?

The epistemology you began describing is an outdated version of an outdated philosophy called "foundationalism." No serious philosopher holds to the foundationalism that you described.

That said, faith is an engine of knowing because faith (at least as the Christian understands it) is a reliable belief-forming mechanism. It involves the proper function of the human cognitive establishment (i.e., what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus) and the direct activity of God (i.e., the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit). This is an oversimplification, but perhaps one oversimplification deserves another, eh?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Footprints - My whole reply can be summed up in one emoticon -

Ok that about sums that up.

Troublemane,

Logic is incapable of describing certain real life experience and important scientific theories such as quantum field theory, or relativity. Those require higher-order thinking which transcend logic. So does spirituality. Therefore, the argument that logic can either prove or disprove the existence of God has been abandoned by everybody since the 19th century.

Sorry dude, this thread has arrived 100 years too late.

Ok I'll bite. If not logic and inductive reasoning than what? What is this 'higher reasoning' you are describing? Is it anything like wishful thinking? But I will agree with one point - As the claim 'there is a god' can not be falsified, it can never fall into the realm of science.

Dunemeister,

The epistemology you began describing is an outdated version of an outdated philosophy called "foundationalism." No serious philosopher holds to the foundationalism that you described.

You are joking, right? Foundationalism is the categorical name under which both rationalism and empericism fall, those being the cornerstones of modern science. And as far as 'no serious philosophers'..I guess Hume, Spinoza, Descartes, Bacon, Locke and Hobbes, just to name a few, don't count.

That said, faith is an engine of knowing because faith (at least as the Christian understands it) is a reliable belief-forming mechanism. It involves the proper function of the human cognitive establishment (i.e., what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus) and the direct activity of God (i.e., the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit). This is an oversimplification, but perhaps one oversimplification deserves another, eh?

Well, this is the first actual attempt to define faith as an epistemological discipline. At least someone is making an honest attempt here!
So if I have this straight, you can 'know' through faith based on some sort of cosmic link with god, that imparts information somehow through believing other information is true? This sounds more like apologetics than reasoning to me. If I am wrong, explain it to me like I am 6.

Of course, even were I to accept you can 'know' something by just believing it's true, that still doesn't really address the question of HOW you can know WHAT to have faith IN. People can have faith in mutually exclusive ideas. If I have faith your god does not exist, and you have faith that he does, by what methods can we decipher which faith is right and which one is wrong?

Also, how does one gain NEW knowledge through faith? How does a strong belief in a concept or idea yield knowledge of new truthful concepts or ideas?

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister,


You are joking, right? Foundationalism is the categorical name under which both rationalism and empericism fall, those being the cornerstones of modern science. And as far as 'no serious philosophers'..I guess Hume, Spinoza, Descartes, Bacon, Locke and Hobbes, just to name a few, don't count.

I was actually referring to currently working philosophers, not long-dead ones. We've come a long way since Hobbes and Descartes, and classical foundationalism has come under severe (and well-warranted) criticism. Go to the following link, and view point 3, which discusses the objections to classical foundationalism:

Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As a result of these rather devastating objections, most (but not all) serious work in epistemology has recently been working with what are called "externalist" epistemologies.

So no, I'm not joking.

So if I have this straight, you can 'know' through faith based on some sort of cosmic link with god, that imparts information somehow through believing other information is true? This sounds more like apologetics than reasoning to me. If I am wrong, explain it to me like I am 6.

Why? Should I assume you're stupid? Or are you capable of understanding the arguments of mature people? Assuming you're not really serious about me treating you like a toddler, here goes.

The epistemology involves FOUR aspects. First, there's the sensus divinitatus. Essentially, this means that human beings have an "organ" (for lack of a better word) for perceiving and interacting with God. No, it's not the type of "organ" you find by pointing at an anatomical chart. Rather, you might think of it as a capacity for human beings that emerges as a result of the way the brain is constructed. In any case, everyone has a sensus divinitatus.

Second, there's our fallen nature. The operation of the sensus divinitatus has been deeply compromised. In a sense, human beings suffer from a sort of affective disorder that causes them to resent, fear, or hate God and the things of God rather than cherish, love, and joyfully embrace them. It's a sort of insanity of the will.

Third, there's redemption. That is, God overcomes the problem of sin through an act (or several acts) of healing grace. Once I was blind; now I see.

Fourth, there's sanctification. That is, God continues the healing process on an ongoing basis. In so doing, he convinces people of the truth or falsity of certain things claimed about God and even what Jonathan Edwards referred to as "the great things of the gospel". This continuous activity of God requires our active participation to be effective, and it also takes a great deal of practice to get it right. And so we see that this fourth element, although intensely personal, is also a communal/social activity.

This isn't much more than a brief characterization, but it's a start.

Of course, even were I to accept you can 'know' something by just believing it's true, that still doesn't really address the question of HOW you can know WHAT to have faith IN. People can have faith in mutually exclusive ideas. If I have faith your god does not exist, and you have faith that he does, by what methods can we decipher which faith is right and which one is wrong?

Perhaps believing one thing as opposed to another involves intense personal commitment together with great risk. Perhaps there's no easy rubrik, no handy rule of thumb by which we can cast aside our responsibility to form our beliefs aright.

Also, how does one gain NEW knowledge through faith? How does a strong belief in a concept or idea yield knowledge of new truthful concepts or ideas?

Well, I gain new knowledge all the time. I gain knowledge about God; I gain knowledge about myself; I gain knowledge about the way the world works -- from an ethical, social, political, and psychological point of view. I find these insights of tremendous value and use, although they wouldn't be of much help in getting tenure for a science professor.

 

[Walkntune]

Without faith, knowledge wouldn't be stored in the brain in the first place. It wouldn't be taken in. It is equivalent to talking to a person in a daydream, it would go in one ear and out the other, their daydream would be given the higher authority. Of course, when the faith of belief turned to interest, they would take in every word.

We can only know through faith. It is an imposibility to know any other way. The brain either accepts or rejects knowledge and we have faith in our capablity to discern this accept and reject capability.

I agree with these statements here. The way we take in knowledge is through awareness which is actually opened and closed by faith and fear.
Try to explain something to someone panicking or to someone calm and see who receives better.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Dunemeister,

Thanks for being the first Christian I have talked to in my time on these forums to behave civilly. It has been refreshing.

Firstly, while it's true the anti-foundationalist movement in philosophy has had many proponents in recent years, I would hardly call it the predominant view. The problem with it, much like creation is to evolution, is that it pokes holes in the 'other guy' without offering up a tenable alternative.

Secondly,

First, there's the sensus divinitatus

Going to have to stop you there. I have no interest into delving into christian theology.

Perhaps believing one thing as opposed to another involves intense personal commitment together with great risk. Perhaps there's no easy rubrik, no handy rule of thumb by which we can cast aside our responsibility to form our beliefs aright.

Well, I gain new knowledge all the time. I gain knowledge about God; I gain knowledge about myself; I gain knowledge about the way the world works -- from an ethical, social, political, and psychological point of view. I find these insights of tremendous value and use, although they wouldn't be of much help in getting tenure for a science professor.

That's just it, you don't 'just' gain knowledge. You have to evaluate everything you encounter, and figure out truth statements based on your own sensory data, reasoning and evidence. This is the realm of productive epistemology. Knowledge just doesn't 'appear' in your brain.

 

[fallingblood]

That's just it, you don't 'just' gain knowledge. You have to evaluate everything you encounter, and figure out truth statements based on your own sensory data, reasoning and evidence. This is the realm of productive epistemology. Knowledge just doesn't 'appear' in your brain.

I will just start here. Define truth. Does truth change with perspective? Does truth change from one person to the other based on their previous knowledge, and their perspective?

If so, faith can be considered valid epistemology.