Poll - How Do We Know?

How Do We Know?

  • The Bible - God's revelation to man

    Votes: 40 48.2%
  • Science - the scientific method

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Experience - "seeing is believing"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Reason - the application of the laws of logic

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • All of the above

    Votes: 35 42.2%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Other - I'll explain below

    Votes: 4 4.8%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Magma2

Puritan Board Sophomore
Epistemology is concerned with the study and science of knowledge. For many the problem of epistemology can be summed up as; unless you can explain how you know something you can't really say you know anything at all.

Since the time of Plato those who have studied epistemology have defined knowledge as justified true belief. Or, to put it another way -- true opinion with an account of its truth.

Which of the following provides man with justified true belief (knowledge):

1) The Bible - God's revelation to man
2) Science - the scientific method
3) Experience - "seeing is believing"
4) Reason - the application of the laws of logic
5) All of the above
6) None of the above
7) Other - I'll explain below
8) I don't know
 
Science is disputed, experience is subjective and reason is tainted by the fall. Jesus said:

[bible]John 17:17[/bible]
 
I answered "I don't know" because I'm a fairly new student of philosophy and often find myself overwhelmed while reading through some of the conversations on the board. I'd like to learn more, though.

Science is disputed, experience is subjective and reason is tainted by the fall. Jesus said:

[bible]John 17:17[/bible]

This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?
 
Last edited:
I voted for "all of the above" I will not go into my reasons now but I would like to add, the Holy Bible is the lens by which you must view and measure the others. Grace and Peace
 
Last edited:
This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?

Good question.

I would say this is because the "sensory receptors" do no receive "information", but images and sensations. The mind itself must recognize these images and replace them with the ideas and concepts they represent. In other words, you can't read a sentence if you don't know what the words mean a priori. Reading is an example knowledge of the necessity a a priori knowledge.

So you are not getting any information via the sensory receptors, only images that you mind must already know how to translate. This is completely different from the idea of empiricism - which says that the information is produced from sensations and images themselves (by so mysterious process). Empiricism is the idea that we can know by sensory perception alone - or that the root or basis of knowledge is sensations and images.

If sensation has a "role" in obtaining knowledge is debatable. If there is a role, it is not one of producing knowledge a posteriori (deriving knowledge from experience). New knowledge must be based on a priori knowledge (knowledge already known) such as the case of reading or hearing language.

There are those who believe language itself is a product of evolution - with origins in primitive grunts and groans. These sounds developed over time into language as we know it. This model is the one which allows for empirical knowledge - as language itself would have to be a product of experience: the "yow" in response to seeing the saber-toothed cat evolved into the word "cat" or "watch out!". This model might save the empirical model of knowledge.

But to answer your question more directly ("If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?") We depending on the Holy Spirit.
 
I voted for "all of the above" I will not go into my reasons now but I would like to add, the Holy Bible is the lens by which you must view and measure the others. Grace and Peace

I'll be interested in your response.

If one says that the Bible has the final say on what is truth, then it seems to me that none of the others are sufficient in themselves to produce knowledge (they . In other words, you can speculate about what is true or false using empirical and rational methods, but the Bible is the final authority and therefore the only foundation for truth given to man.

I'd say it is reasonable to believe things based on things other than Scripture, I just would not call it "knowing" or real knowledge.
 
I'll be interested in your response.

If one says that the Bible has the final say on what is truth, then it seems to me that none of the others are sufficient in themselves to produce knowledge (they . In other words, you can speculate about what is true or false using empirical and rational methods, but the Bible is the final authority and therefore the only foundation for truth given to man.

I'd say it is reasonable to believe things based on things other than Scripture, I just would not call it "knowing" or real knowledge.
Chuckle! You actually answered it yourself. For me the Bible is the ultimate revelation, we must interpret natural revelation through it. Never the other way around. Grace and Peace.
 
I answered "I don't know" because I'm a fairly new student of philosophy and often find myself overwhelmed while reading through some of the conversations on the board. I'd like to learn more, though.



This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?

David, do not discount the very real ministry of the Holy Spirit. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creautre.
 
David, do not discount the very real ministry of the Holy Spirit. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creautre.

I'm not trying to discount anything; I'd just like to make sense of what everyone is saying. We use our reasoning faculties to understand what is taught in the bible. I was wondering how this fits in with our testimony that reasoning is tainted and therefore not wholly reliable. The answer I got from both you and Anthony had to do with the Holy Spirit. However, we wouldn't be able to give that answer if we hadn't first used our faulty reason to understand what the bible says about the Holy Spirit. Does this make any sense?
 
I'm not trying to discount anything; I'd just like to make sense of what everyone is saying. We use our reasoning faculties to understand what is taught in the bible. I was wondering how this fits in with our testimony that reasoning is tainted and therefore not wholly reliable. The answer I got from both you and Anthony had to do with the Holy Spirit. However, we wouldn't be able to give that answer if we hadn't first used our faulty reason to understand what the bible says about the Holy Spirit. Does this make any sense?

I think the argument that "reasoning" itself is tainted by sin is self-defeating. I think you see the problem with this line of reasoning, it makes knowing impossible.

Some arguments are correct, and some are fallacious. I believe the problem is with the presuppositions people hold, not reasoning itself. Even with perfectly valid argumentation, people may draw false conclusions if their premises are false. This is why I think empiricism or rationalism or any other epistemology that does not make Scripture it's foundation is inherently flawed. They start with false premises. Empiricism because it teaches that one can convert true knowledge from sensations alone, and rationalism because it believes knowledge can be produced from empty forms without any founding axioms.

On the other hand, if one has the correct presuppositions, and they use valid arguments, their conclusions will necessarily be true. So the problem is not with "reasoning" or logic itself.
 
Tainted does not mean useless. Left to our own devices our reason would be biased by sin. Consider the following texts:

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

[bible]Ephesians 2:1-2[/bible]

The natural (unsaved) man is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. Paul does not say the natural man cannot understand from a worldly perspective. He cannot understand from a heavenly perspective. In Ephesians we find that the natural mans spiritual condition is described as dead. Again, this does not mean the natural man is not able to use reason. It is just that his reason is tainted by sin. The Holy Spirit is able to quicken the mind to the things of God. Once this is done then reason can be a good teacher.
 
Sean:

Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding.

In simple terms, my epistemology subjects my theory of knowledge. I'm not looking for consistency in my own theory, but trying to conform my theory to consistency, trying to become consistent. I am trying my best to be Scriptural, and therefore that obviates temporal Scripturalism. I can't understand all things, but I can try to bring all things that I can perceive into conformity to the unity of truth. In the end I will only be able to say that I understood poorly. But I hope to be able to say that I understood to the best of my ability, poor as it was.

In the end, the question will be whether I knew my Lord. Did I hear His voice speaking to me whenever truth was spoken? Did I hear His voice when I was not able to discern truth, and all I could do was obey? Did I converse with Him in my prayers, when I read His Word, submitted to the preaching of His Word? How well I personally know my Lord will be more a determining factor than my theory of knowledge. It will also be more of a determining factor in coming to understand than any other thing, even more than the Word of God all by itself.

The Word of God, the Scriptures, the Bible, cannot be separated from the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be separated from Christ. The Bible is not merely an epistemological reference point. Without the Spirit illumination, many will read the Bible and not understand. Their epistemology is not helped at all by appealing to it.

I know because God knows me; it is not the case that God knows me because I know Him. Applied directly to His revelation of Himself, I know what God is saying of Himself through creation and the Word because He has made Himself known to me. Not just about Himself, but Himself too, through the creation and through the Word.

No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.
 
Sean:

Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding.

:ditto:

I wanted to answer the question too but, while I believe revelation comes from the Word, I also think mankind learns from the things created due to a capacity given him in creation. Most of the options are methods of informing and not the "...why I know...."

I believe Adam knew God innately in the Garden but Adam was not immediately given the names of animals. Rather, God brought the animals to him so he could name them. I don't believe the names that were given the animals were random syllables nor do I believe that the capacities to see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and reason given to Adam were useless in that process.
 
I believe Adam knew God innately in the Garden but Adam was not immediately given the names of animals. Rather, God brought the animals to him so he could name them. I don't believe the names that were given the animals were random syllables nor do I believe that the capacities to see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and reason given to Adam were useless in that process.

That's a very interesting point. I have no idea if the names he gave them were random syllables or not. But God did have Adam assign symbols to the different animals. This actually is relevant to how definitions work - they a tautologies. He could have said "that's a dog", or "that's a koobler", and it would not have mattered. The definition gives meaning to the word. And this demonstrates that we are allowed to define new terms to help us communicate. Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.
 
That's a very interesting point. I have no idea if the names he gave them were random syllables or not. But God did have Adam assign symbols to the different animals. This actually is relevant to how definitions work - they a tautologies. He could have said "that's a dog", or "that's a koobler", and it would not have mattered. The definition gives meaning to the word. And this demonstrates that we are allowed to define new terms to help us communicate. Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.

Anthony - Adam also had direct communion with God. The fall had not yet taken place. Did God speak to Adam verbally? In the Spirit (to Adam's spirit)? Had God created a language for Adam? When Adam named the animals was his ability to do so innate or did God provoke his mind? I've heard it taught that Adam's intellectual and mental faculties were much higher than ours because they were not tainted by the physical effects of sin. It's an interesting argument, one that I have not entertained for some time.
 
Anthony - Adam also had direct communion with God. The fall had not yet taken place. Did God speak to Adam verbally? In the Spirit (to Adam's spirit)? Had God created a language for Adam? When Adam named the animals was his ability to do so innate or did God provoke his mind? I've heard it taught that Adam's intellectual and mental faculties were much higher than ours because they were not tainted by the physical effects of sin. It's an interesting argument, one that I have not entertained for some time.

I don't see any reason to assume Adam did not speak to God the way Moses did - verbally. It seems that Adam knew language immediately from God. Adam did not have to learn language from his mother.

[bible] Genesis 2:19 [/bible]

Adam's ability to name the animals would have been innate - just like his ability to speak was innate. And by implication, the capacity to make up new terms is also an innate ability. Beyond that, I'm not confident that more can be said.

It is very interesting.

P.S. for some reason I can't get Gen 2:19 to display in this post. :(
P.P.S. Now it works!
 
For anyone who didn't answer "The Bible - God's revelation to man", shame on you! Don't you know that from God springs forth every bit of knowledge?

I always get annoyed when I see Greek quotes because I know none of that would be any good if it wasn't for God letting it happen. Pastor Brian Schwertley said that sola scriptura is the foundation for how we must approach Bible study, and I agree with him. He also said the Bible is the text book for counseling. If not based on scripture, it's no good unless it is coincidentally in agreement with God's word. Psychology and philosophy distract us from the truth.

Satan wants us to believe that we need extra-Biblical advice. He wants us to think, "Hey, maybe there's a chance someone else has the answer I'm looking for because I can't find it in that Bible thing."
 
This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?

Faith in the living word of God.
 
I know because God knows me; it is not the case that God knows me because I know Him. Applied directly to His revelation of Himself, I know what God is saying of Himself through creation and the Word because He has made Himself known to me. Not just about Himself, but Himself too, through the creation and through the Word.

No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.

YES! Great point, John! I am happy you brought up that we cannot know God without God first revealing Himself to us. I want to add that for us to know God would mean we obey Him completely. If we obey Him only when it is convenient for us, we do not know Him and we do not love Him. Thanks for pointing out that we have no reaching-out power to understand God. He drives us to read and hear His word. Through His word and His Son comes all truth and understanding. This is only a mystery to the unrighteous believer.
 
Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding.

I'm not going to get into this debate now since I want to see how the poll turns out first, but I think my opening remarks frame the question well enough. Besides, I'm not interested here in furthering understanding, just getting a head count. I think I clearly defined how I was using the term knowledge and if someone doesn't understand that, perhaps they or you could ask for clarification. :book2:

If you'd like to make a more nuanced response or simply qualify your answer, #7 has you covered. :)

The Bible is not merely an epistemological reference point. Without the Spirit illumination, many will read the Bible and not understand. Their epistemology is not helped at all by appealing to it.

All this is irrelevant to the poll question. I assume everyone answering it is a Christian. The question has to do with what you think qualifies as knowledge in the sense of being a justified true belief. That's all.

No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.

Again, while I'm glad, it is besides the point of the poll.
 
Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.
I don't believe he made them up. Note how he names his wife both Woman and Eve (two names) - the names reflect her nature. That's the way names are given throughout the Scripture.
 
I don't believe he made them up. Note how he names his wife both Woman and Eve (two names) - the names reflect her nature. That's the way names are given throughout the Scripture.

Either he knew the name of the animals or he made them up. Since God told him to name the animals, he made them up.

He came up with a new term - the name Eve. Prior to Adam naming the woman Eve, there was nothing named Eve. Nor was there a word for what she was. He decided that he would call her "woman" because she came from man. He made a new term based on her origin in him. And for all the animal names he created new terms (names). He didn't ask God "what's the name of this animal so that I can give this animal to correct name. Adam did the naming, even if he used a combination of other terms in doing so. And he could have used anything he wanted and the name would have been right because he was doing what God told him to do - naming the animals.
 
The "Experience - 'seeing is believing' " is difficult for men to understand. You know how often the one of weak faith demands a sign from God? The "show me a sign so I will understand, God" idea? (Yes, these are professing Christians). Abraham and David were two of the best examples of men who showed complete faith and trust in God's promises to them. That is, we too know God's promises to us, and some of us may sometimes tend to doubt them coming true (that is, doubt God's promises coming to be).

We also have the whole truth in scripture--LESSONS FOR LIFE. So, we can only acquire true knowledge by having knowledge of the complete word--the way to attain wisdom. We are held accountable by God to study, know, and sometimes teach his word.

I know so little right now. Every day I learn so much more through the word and this process will not stop. I cringe when I hear people say "believing is seeing" because it shows me they just aren't confident God will give them knowledge through their faith. I'm not saying to not study academics! I am stressing that we study the scriptures primarily and then we can understand the math, economics, biology, etc. so much better. And yes, there is a lot of worldly knowledge that contradicts the truth, but that too is written.
 
Either he knew the name of the animals or he made them up. Since God told him to name the animals, he made them up.

He came up with a new term - the name Eve. Prior to Adam naming the woman Eve, there was nothing named Eve. Nor was there a word for what she was. He decided that he would call her "woman" because she came from man. He made a new term based on her origin in him. And for all the animal names he created new terms (names). He didn't ask God "what's the name of this animal so that I can give this animal to correct name. Adam did the naming, even if he used a combination of other terms in doing so. And he could have used anything he wanted and the name would have been right because he was doing what God told him to do - naming the animals.

I suppose it's possible that the terms were new but I'm not sure. It seems that Adam was born with a capacity to communicate. He certainly wasn't making up new words that God hadn't conceived of. It's speculation of course.

My point is that Adam was brought the animals and he "experienced" them before he named them. Just as Adam's wife was given names that accorded with her nature, Adam named the animals. It's not as if God said, "Name this..." and Adam uttered "Dog" as some phonetic sound because he was running out of new words. What I'm arguing is that Adam named it Dog because Dog represented the nature of the animal that Adam observed. The name is immaterial, the fact that Adam mediately named the animals by having them brought to him is key.
 
It seems a simple statement to say "the Bible." But the Bible tells us to honour father and mother. How do I know who my father and mother is? The Bible does not tell me such particulars, yet it is clear as day that I must know such particulars if I am going to conscientiously obey the Bible.
 
It seems a simple statement to say "the Bible." But the Bible tells us to honour father and mother. How do I know who my father and mother is? The Bible does not tell me such particulars, yet it is clear as day that I must know such particulars if I am going to conscientiously obey the Bible.

Not at all. You are obligated to honor the people you believe are your parents.

To prove this - suppose one is adopted but was never told. He would assume that his parents were truly his parents. He doesn't know they are his parents even though he has the same level of evidence you or I have. But one can not know a false proposition. Yet even though he doesn't know who his parents are, despite being certain, it would be a sin if he dishonored those who he believed are his parents.

And I do know who my parents when I use the term know colloquially. But we are not talking about beliefs that we are sure about; that level of justification allows for people to have contradictory knowledge.
 
It is a pitiful condition to not be able to know if you have kept God's commandments; 1 John 2:3, "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top