Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
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?
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?