Epistemology – the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.
– Merriam-Webster.
In any debate it is important to understand your opponent’s epistemological position, in other words what they base what they know on. I think it may be most helpful to think of epistemology in terms of all of the sources of knowledge that a person accepts organized in a hierarchy. Within this hierarchy there will be competing views that will contradict each other, but the higher ranked source will win in that persons mind. Let’s start by looking at a few of examples, while I may be wrong on a few details, this is how I understand them and if someone would like to correct me if I’m wrong, then I would appreciate it.
Roman Catholics
1. Church Magisterium, i.e. tradition and papal pronouncements.
2. The Bible
3. Science
Evangelicals
1. The New Testament
2. The Old Testament
3. Science
Seventh-day Adventists
1. The Bible
2. The “Spirit of Prophecy,” for those who aren’t familiar with this, it refers to the writings of Ellen G. White, the SDA church’s official prophet from the 19th and early 20th century.
3. Science
The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints
1. The words of the current prophet
2. The words of past prophets
3. The Book of Mormon
4. The Bible
5. Science
Liberal Protestants
1. The Bible
2. Science
*If there is a conflict between #1 and #2 then the Bible should be understood metaphorically.
Skeptics (including most Atheists)
1. Science
To have a rational discussion with someone of a different epistemology, you have to support your position using the highest common denominator. If a Catholic and a Baptist are discussing things, they will each back their claims using the New Testament. If it’s an Adventist and a Mormon, they will each use the Bible. A liberal Protestant and a skeptic will use science or history, depending on the topic. Arguments made from a source not accepted by your opponent will be rejected flat out. An Adventist wouldn’t accept a papal decree as authoritative anymore than a Baptist would accept the Book of Mormon or an atheist would accept the Bible.
In the discussion I am hoping to have, I will appeal to science and reason. If you want to respond, I recommend responding in the same kind of language.
One thing that can easily happen in a debate between people of different epistemological views, such as between a Christian and an Atheist, is that someone can get offended. The offended party then gets emotional and goes on the defensive, something that will ruin a rational discussion. This can happen on both sides. A Christian could be offended by an atheist’s rejection of their holy book and not accepting what they “know” to be true. An atheist could be offended by a Christian pushing dogma. Rather than get defensive, it is better to simply call the person on where they crossed the line, then the two can decided if the conversation is worth continuing.
In the remaining two posts this week, I will be continuing on the topic of epistemology and how theists and atheists can communicate.
Permalink
"Within this hierarchy there will be competing views that will contradict each other, but the higher ranked source will win in that persons mind." I am completely in agreement with that.
Permalink
Cammie,
I followed the link to your site. Since you agree with the above statement, would you also say that you let your religious beliefs influence your view of scientific evidence if they come into conflict?
Permalink
If I may establish an epistemolgical common denominator with you I would like to clarify it. Science itself is not an epistemological paradigm because it is a human practice that is subjective due to the varied perspectives of its population, the variation in knowledge of specific data within that population, bias within the population and the statistical probability that absolute knowledge may not exist. Therefore a better epistemological common denominator is accepting that human observation is subjective and limited and is not a solid epistemological foundation for truth. If you agree then we can approach the question of God's existence and the statistical probability that life on this planet is explained by evolution. If you want to email me I am at [email protected].
Permalink
If I may establish an epistemolgical common denominator with you I would like to clarify it. Science itself is not an epistemological paradigm because it is a human practice that is subjective due to the varied perspectives of its population, the variation in knowledge of specific data within that population, bias within the population and the statistical probability that absolute knowledge may not exist. Therefore a better epistemological common denominator is accepting that human observation is subjective and limited and is not a solid epistemological foundation for truth. If you agree then we can approach the question of God's existence and the statistical probability that life on this planet is explained by evolution. If you want to email me I am at [email protected].
Permalink
If I may establish an epistemolgical common denominator with you I would like to clarify it. Science itself is not an epistemological paradigm because it is a human practice that is subjective due to the varied perspectives of its population, the variation in knowledge of specific data within that population, bias within the population and the statistical probability that absolute knowledge may not exist. Therefore a better epistemological common denominator is accepting that human observation is subjective and limited and is not a solid epistemological foundation for truth. If you agree then we can approach the question of God's existence and the statistical probability that life on this planet is explained by evolution. If you want to email me I am at [email protected].
Permalink
"Within this hierarchy there will be competing views that will contradict each other, but the higher ranked source will win in that persons mind." I am completely in agreement with that.