I think what I wanted to ask about knowledge is how you would define “knowledge.”

And here are some first thoughts concerning “religious” knowledge. Obviously, I’m concentrating on Western Christianity; I don’t know very much about the Eastern branch of Christianity.

Maybe distinct types of “religious” knowledge can be divided into these broad catergories:

a. Statements about God (e.g., God created the world, God chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish nation, God sent Jesus to the perfect sacrifice for sin, Jesus is divine).

b. Statements about what Christians believe (e.g., Christians believe that God created the world, etc.)

c. Statements about the history of Christianity (e.g., Augustine was bishop of Hippo, Aquinas wrote the _Summa Theologica_, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus). You may not include this as “religious” knowledge–and I’m not really convinced either.

I am inclined to define “religious” to focus on a system of first principles, so I would focus on the first group as “religious knowledge” proper. The other groups are secondary and tertiary (in the order I grouped them).

I hope this is helpful (though admittedly deficient). I will write more as I am able.

Thanks,
jesse

So, you would say the thing itself is a material entity, but the concept is also a material entity. All I’m doing is asking you to explain how this can be so. If I observe a tree, I experience 2 things on your view: the tree itself, and the concept of the tree. Am I therefore experiencing two material entities at the same time? There is the tree, a material thing, and there are (on your view) the chemicals in my brain enabling a concept of the tree, but that doesn’t require that the actual concept produced by the chemicals is material. This conception of epistemolical observation in no way negates the idea that conceptual schemes are only material.

aas;ldkfja;sdfjopisupoeijsdfj

And, I’d still like you to explain the original statement, “We all have the same logical properties because we all exist.” You still haven’t defended this statement of assertionism.
In fact, I’m not sure your statement even makes sense. Please explain and defend it.

Yours,
Chris

From the part of who or what? If you mean from the part of the knower, I would say things like: a mind capable of grasping reality, the faculty of reason, the desire to grasp reality and to use reason, the conceptualization and education necessary to formulate thoughts, things of that nature.

“Second, what exactly do you mean by a “Christian epistemology”? Is that short-hand, as it were, for “religious knowledge?””

I am referring to a specifically Christian analysis of the acquisition of knowledge, most specifically presuppositionalism, which states that knowledge presupposes the existence of God.

“I am concluding that you would affirm these claims:

a. The only reason that Christians know anything is that they (consciously or not) abandon their worldview and accept a non-theistic one.”

I agree.

“b. Whatever the requirements for knowledge in general are, those same requirements would apply to religious knowledge.”

If by this you mean knowledge of religious things, then I may agree, depending on how you define religious.

“c. Religious knowledge, by the nature of its subject area, could never fulfill the requirements of knowledge.”

Same as previous.

“d. Therefore, religious knowledge is a failed venture from the beginning.”

Same as previous.

“I have thoughts on the other subject I mentioned, but I am very interested in this matter of knowledge. I hope you don’t mind.”

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject, as well as how you define “religious.”

Thanks for your responses.

Some thoughts: First, what do you see as the requirements for knowledge in a general sense? Second, what exactly do you mean by a “Christian epistemology”? Is that short-hand, as it were, for “religious knowledge?” I am concluding that you would affirm these claims:

a. The only reason that Christians know anything is that they (consciously or not) abandon their worldview and accept a non-theistic one.

b. Whatever the requirements for knowledge in general are, those same requirements would apply to religious knowledge.

c. Religious knowledge, by the nature of its subject area, could never fulfill the requirements of knowledge.

d. Therefore, religious knowledge is a failed venture from the beginning.

I have thoughts on the other subject I mentioned, but I am very interested in this matter of knowledge. I hope you don’t mind.

Best,
Jesse

Well, I think I mentioned this before. The argument is basically this: if you live in a world where any law of nature may be suspended or overturned by a non-material agency, then there is no fundamental grounds to believe anything. You may believe something to be true on pragmatic or statistical grounds, but induction cannot hold. For instance, you cannot say that “the Sun will rise tomorrow” is fundamentally sound, because it may be (and in the Bible, was) suspended.

“Why does an epistemology have to rest on certainty? How can there be certainty exist in a purely materialistic universe?”

I said “any certainty,” implying degrees. I do admit that the word was badly chosen, and for this I apologize.

“Didn’t David Hume already teach us that there is no contradiction in saying “The sun will not rise tomorrow”? How can we know anything if we can’t be certain that the sun is going to rise tomorrow?”

Certainty is not necessary in such a case. I do not need to know for certain that the sun is going to rise in order to know anything. In fact, I don’t see what the sun rising or not has to do with any other knowledge (except of course that related to days or astronomy).

“We all have the same logical properties because we all exist.”

I asked,

Why is this so? How does existence necessitate having logical properties that are congruent with all sentient beings?

This is the original question. I’m asking you to defend your statement. how does our existence make necessary the we all share the same properties in our brains? How do you know that we all share in this same, grand uniformity? How do you know that we all have the same laws of logic in our brains? We are all individuals, yet somehow, you assert that we all have these properties in our brains that you call the laws of logic. How, since we are all different, do we all have the same, exact laws as chemical properties within us? What is the unifying factor?

thanks,
chris

First, “Once you accept that God is omnipotent, the only consistent course of action is to systematically cast anxiety on all the laws of nature and psychology.”

I’m not sure I follow how this systematic anxiety follows from God’s omnipotence. Could you elaborate?

Second, “More simply, no epistemology can hold in the Christian worldview, because the worldview by definition excludes the possibility of knowing anything with any certainty whatsoever.”

Why does an epistemology have to rest on certainty? How can there be certainty exist in a purely materialistic universe?

Didn’t David Hume already teach us that there is no contradiction in saying “The sun will not rise tomorrow”? How can we know anything if we can’t be certain that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? (And I fully understand that the sun doesn’t really rise, but I hope you will allow the use of the idiom.)

Best wishes,
Jesse