Epistemological Revelation vs. epistemological empiricism; or Science vs. Theology.

Hotspace

When I read debate books on both sides of the theological divide I am struck by how few mention the contrasting worldviews of epistemological revelation and (in my opinion) its far superior and opposing counterpart epistemological empiricism. A few mention it under different guises but few, if any, fail to capitalize on its importance. Dan Barker called for a deeper insight of what knowledge is and how we acquire it. Of course, he’s no philosopher so he lacked the necessary language to expand this further. And when we read someone who is more than capable of expanding it further he just misses out on the opportunity, of course, I’m talking of Daniel Dennett and his book: Breaking the spell.

Epistemological revelation has no evidential starting place. It has as its foundation a God that we cannot detect with any of our senses and moreover we cannot detect with all our advances in science. And even through philosophical arguments, such as the ontological argument and the Kalam cosmological argument, we are still no closer to gaining a degree of reasonableness for God’s existence. The reasoning for trust in this epistemological view must rest solely on faith and it must be circular, i.e. I believe in God because I have the bible and I believe in the bible because I believe in God.

Epistemological revelation has as its foundations just the art of words. Knowledge is told to us in the form of stories, parables and reports of events. This is a very weak base to build knowledge upon. Each reader of such a format will go away and believe something subtly different or concretely different. For knowledge, in the form of prose, to pass from the page to a mind accurately then it has to be extremely well written. The only thing we could reliably conclude is that God or His Spirit-breathed writers aren’t very good at their art. If we grant that God would choose such a weak medium for knowledge transfer then I believe the kind of writing that it would contain would be a report or manifesto or some form of writing at present unclassifiable.

What is it about humans that they enjoy stories, myth and legend so much? We are indeed a social and lingual animal and it is an inseparable part of our psychology. But when we look upon this as a method of knowledge acquisition and knowledge transfer from mind to mind, it is a very poor epistemological framework.

The trouble with epistemological revelation is that we don't know which ones of the revealed religions is correct. How could we decide? They each have their share of bravery and honour and likewise they have their share of superstitious nonsense, viz: talking snakes and flying horses. And with enough mangled interpretation their revelations can be twisted to suit modern day science. Each religion says that theirs is the true one and - by implication and sometimes explicitly - they say that the others are false.

Now let’s turn our attention to epistemological empiricism or its modern day manifestation: the scientific method. When we talk of epistemology we ask ourselves questions such as what is truth and can one possibly know a falsehood? Of course when we step outside the bounds of mathematics we realise that nothing can be proved to be true; we are therefore forced to argue in terms of reasonableness or degrees of certainty. The scientific method of observation – hypothesis – experiment – theory – falsification – hypothesis is perhaps the only method we have of gaining truth. The scientific theory gives us an excellent framework for knowledge acquisition it also allows the easy transfer of knowledge from one mind to another - often without ambiguity. Over time theories are adjusted and more evidence is gathered to prove their veracity or their falsehood.

The tools of science are: observation, mathematics, modelling of data, experimentation and hypothesizing - amongst others. The tools of theology (the description of the undertaking of learning revelation) are exegesis, hermeneutics and well, basically, ruminating on one sacred book. Theology has as its ultimate foundation faith in an unseen supernatural being and it is all but impossible to undertake theology without this faith.

Given the above I just can’t see how anyone can look to epistemological revelation as a valid method of knowledge acquisition. Can you?

fitz0

Since, and I say this with a great degree of certainty, all the atheists/agnostics on this board agree that science>religion, maybe this question would be more suited to the Other forum?

CerebralCortex

fitz0 wrote: »

Since, and I say this with a great degree of certainty, all the atheists/agnostics on this board agree that science>religion, maybe this question would be more suited to the Other forum?

I agree, you'd get a hell of a lot of friction in the other <cough>Christianity<cough> forum. Actually I'm extremely surprised Jakk hasn't said something.

Hotspace

Thanks for your advice. It's just that I don't feel welcome at the Christianity Forum. I seem to tread on their Charter and rub-up the moderators the wrong way with everything I say. To be fair, I got the idea for this thread from something posted there and Wicknight agreed it would be good to discuss it in the A&A forum.

pH

Hotspace wrote: »

Now let’s turn our attention to epistemological empiricism or its modern day manifestation: the scientific method. When we talk of epistemology we ask ourselves questions such as what is truth and can one possibly know a falsehood?

It's worth just how novel the "scientific method" actually was when it was stumbled across, and how poor religious sponsored "universities" actually were.

To illustrate the point, Galileo, one of the first users and pioneers of what we understand today as science ended up in a debate about why ice floated (anyone who's read Galileo's daughter will be familiar with this). Galileo knew that ice floated because it was less dense than water, he'd done the experiments and he could 'prove' it. However the prevailing wisdom at the time was that it was the shape of object that mattered.

Many seemed genuinely to think that it was nothing to do with evidence, somehow the cleverer idea was the correct one, experiments, results and evidence just didn't come into it.

Whatever about Galileo's pioneering discoveries using telescopes, it seems amazing that over 1500 years after Aristotle, learned men in universities still maintained that heavier bodies fell faster, and that ice floated because of its shaper, when simple experiments anyone can do can falsify those theories.

So as an aside, remember this, the next time anyone is going on about how good religion was for supporting universities and learning!

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I agree, you'd get a hell of a lot of friction in the other <cough>Christianity<cough> forum. Actually I'm extremely surprised Jakk hasn't said something.

I don't think theology and science are in direct opposition to one another. Rather that they are different disciplines with different aims.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think theology and science are in direct opposition to one another. Rather that they are different disciplines with different aims.

Sure they are. Both make claims about existence, one can back them up, the other indulges in nothing more than a priori word games. They're totally in conflict.

Hotspace

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think theology and science are in direct opposition to one another. Rather that they are different disciplines with different aims.

Many have said that before; indeed, it sounds like Stephen Jay Gould's Non overlapping magisteria. But, I and many others believe otherwise. Genesis is perhaps man's primitive attempt to understand his origins and one could almost say that it was a primitive attempt at science. But science as we know it, it is clearly not.

Non overlapping magisteria was effectively covered in the God Delusion. Dawkins writes and I paraphrase that if theology would find scientific evidence for God then it would shout it from the rooftops. Theology would use science to find God, but science has just not found him. The branch of theology called natural theology attempts to find God in nature but it has been demoted to purely philosophical reasoning as there isn't any natural or empirical evidence for God.

Yes they are different disciplines (as far as one can call theology a discipline), but to say they have different aims or they don't overlap is just failing to look at the debate in any depth.

bnt

The thing about NOMA is that it's a theoretical construct. It falls apart the instant theists make a claim about the real world, or try and tell real people what to do. Since each theistic religion manifestly does both those things - and would be completely toothless if it did not ... well, that about wraps it up for NOMA, I think. Ditto for any claim that science and religion are separate but equal in any sense. One can back up its claims, the other can not.

If this sounds trite or simplistic as a response to the long original post, I would say that it is a simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. Whenever I've tried to read any theology, I keep running in to the problem of arbitrary complexity - the author introducing more complications in a vain attempt to justify a position that has no solid foundation under it. :cool:

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Sure they are. Both make claims about existence, one can back them up, the other indulges in nothing more than a priori word games. They're totally in conflict.

They would only be "totally" in conflict if every theological claim had a scientific counter claim and vice versa. Just because you want some sort of epic war between the two does not make it so.

philologos

The question is, do we think that science is somehow more important than every other field of enquiry? I personally don't, a lot of you guys do.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is, do we think that science is somehow more important than every other field of enquiry? I personally don't, a lot of you guys do.

Well the evidence is with science.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well the evidence is with science.

Theology doesn't exist to assess scientific claims. Rather it exists to explore Christianity, it's basis, and it's drawbacks. It's an academic assessment of Christianity, for all to discuss and analyse. Infact the study of Christianity has been more open to criticism than pretty much any other world faith.

If theology and science were looking to answer the same questions you might have a case, but they aren't.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

If theology and science were looking to answer the same questions you might have a case, but they aren't.

Does theology not try to address how life started, how the universe came into being, and why humans are the way they are?

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

If theology and science were looking to answer the same questions you might have a case, but they aren't.

OK then, what are the big 5 questions theology has answered in the last 100 years - just a synopsis of the question and answer would do, or are they still working on "how many angels fit on the tip of a needle?"

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Does theology not try to address how life started, how the universe came into being, and why humans are the way they are?

Not exactly. The mechanisms as to how this came into existence are largely left to science. The question of causation is really the only issue that concerns how or why the universe came into existence. I'd say it's more to do with the why rather than the how.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

They would only be "totally" in conflict if every theological claim had a scientific counter claim and vice versa. Just because you want some sort of epic war between the two does not make it so.

Er, wow. Way to get hung up on a casual use of poetic license. Imagine you're talking to someone from California. You ask "Are you going surfing?" to which he responds "Totally!"

Would you take it a) That he was going surfing and was quite eager, or b) He was going to surf for the rest of eternity on every beach in the universe?

Please bear this scenario in mind when interpreting me saying "They're totally in conflict".

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Theology doesn't exist to assess scientific claims. Rather it exists to explore Christianity, it's basis, and it's drawbacks. It's an academic assessment of Christianity, for all to discuss and analyse. Infact the study of Christianity has been more open to criticism than pretty much any other world faith.

If theology and science were looking to answer the same questions you might have a case, but they aren't.

But if we're being honest then they really are.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Not exactly. The mechanisms as to how this came into existence are largely left to science. The question of causation is really the only issue that concerns how or why the universe came into existence. I'd say it's more to do with the why rather than the how.

Then why did the universe come into existence?
Because if the answer to that is that God made it so - that sounds more like how to me.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Then why did the universe come into existence?
Because if the answer to that is that God made it so - that sounds more like how to me.

The question 'why' implies a cause; maybe it just is.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

Theology doesn't exist to assess scientific claims. Rather it exists to explore Christianity, it's basis, and it's drawbacks. It's an academic assessment of Christianity, for all to discuss and analyse. Infact the study of Christianity has been more open to criticism than pretty much any other world faith.

Umm, forgive me if I'm mistaken here, but isn't Theology the study/discussion/etc. of any religion, not just Christianity

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is, do we think that science is somehow more important than every other field of enquiry? I personally don't, a lot of you guys do.

Theology as a field of enquiry? I'd rate it up there with Analysis of the political structure of the Republic after the collapse of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars.

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Many seemed genuinely to think that it was nothing to do with evidence, somehow the cleverer idea was the correct one, experiments, results and evidence just didn't come into it.

The simple danger of using philosophy to explain matters such as this.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it's more to do with the why rather than the how.

Interesting, though I don't think I will ever understand how the 'why' will ever be sufficient, for some.

'God did it', simply doesn't suffice, for me.

gaynorvader

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Interesting, though I don't think I will ever understand how the 'why' will ever be sufficient, for some.

'God did it', simply doesn't suffice, for me.

'God did it' is not a why. 'God was bored' is a why, 'God wanted to test his powers' is a why. Both, however go against the Christian notion of a perfect all-powerful God.

Flamed Diving

gaynorvader wrote: »

'God did it' is not a why. 'God was bored' is a why, 'God wanted to test his powers' is a why. Both, however go against the Christian notion of a perfect all-powerful God.

So Theology is not even slightly interested in the mechanism that God used?

gaynorvader

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So Theology is not even slightly interested in the mechanism that God used?

What? When did I say that, or even imply it?

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Just because you want some sort of epic war between the two does not make it so.

You don't deny the holocaust as well do you? Because you seem to be ignoring the slaughtering Science has been doing of Religions and Gods for centuries.

Science has a word for its victories. We call the empty, beaten carcass of that which was once sacred "Mythology".

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You don't deny the holocaust as well do you? Because you seem to be ignoring the slaughtering Science has been doing of Religions and Gods for centuries.

When the only evidence of this slaughtering is written about in atheist polemics, as opposed to science or anything mainstream, why shouldn't I ignore the "slaughter"?

Science has a word for its victories. We call the empty, beaten carcass of that which was once sacred "Mythology".

"We"? You don't get to claim science as your own.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

When the only evidence of this slaughtering is written about in atheist polemics, as opposed to science or anything mainstream, why shouldn't I ignore the "slaughter"?



"We"? You don't get to claim science as your own.

Its probably the only thing all humans have capacity to do regarsless of the significance.

Flamed Diving

Húrin wrote: »

"We"? You don't get to claim science as your own.

In Science, "we" refers to humanity. When "we" discover something new, the darkness of human ignorance is diluted further. Whether you acknowledge Science or not, you are complicit in it, whenever you eat of its fruits (like the thingy you are using to communicate in this forum).

Flamed Diving

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Its probably the only thing all humans have capacity to do regarsless of the significance.

He seems to have mistaken "we" with "I".

Easy enough mistake to make, I guess.

994

pH wrote: »

It's worth just how novel the "scientific method" actually was when it was stumbled across, and how poor religious sponsored "universities" actually were.

To illustrate the point, Galileo, one of the first users and pioneers of what we understand today as science ended up in a debate about why ice floated (anyone who's read Galileo's daughter will be familiar with this). Galileo knew that ice floated because it was less dense than water, he'd done the experiments and he could 'prove' it. However the prevailing wisdom at the time was that it was the shape of object that mattered.

Many seemed genuinely to think that it was nothing to do with evidence, somehow the cleverer idea was the correct one, experiments, results and evidence just didn't come into it.

Whatever about Galileo's pioneering discoveries using telescopes, it seems amazing that over 1500 years after Aristotle, learned men in universities still maintained that heavier bodies fell faster, and that ice floated because of its shaper, when simple experiments anyone can do can falsify those theories.

So as an aside, remember this, the next time anyone is going on about how good religion was for supporting universities and learning!

I think that has more to do with blind trust in the "wisdom of the ancients" - Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Pliny et al.

robindch

994 wrote: »

I think that has more to do with blind trust in the "wisdom of the ancients" - Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Pliny et al.

Well, most religions enjoy propping up the idea of the "wisdom of the ancients". For reasons that are fairly obvious...