Epistemology 2 - How have we come this far?

Alriiiight… a month later. Wealp boys, how we doin? How are those omnipresent, ubiquitously determinative epistemologies doing?? Come to any more conclusions? On epistemology or otherwise? Just a thought: In the meantime, we are not waiting to live. Human life does not come with the luxury of a philosophical vacation from time; we live as we believe and study. Do not be paralyzed; do your best at every point and if, in the end, your best was not enough, at least you will know you could not have done better. I hope you are rejoicing in Christ at this moment, and seeking truth because He loves truth and will resurrect us – finally redeeming our labors for truth. Truth would not exist if Christ did not; and if it found a way somehow, it would not be worth striving for.

But our hope, while promising to redeem our lives in the end, does not protect us from making errors – even grave errors. Hope offers strength and motivation, but it does not offer a shortcut past all the world’s difficulties and questions. Our hope is a soldier’s picture of his fiancé.

So returning to epistemology. DJ, are you still pondering? And how are you pondering? What epistemology are you using to ponder epistemology? Ahhh! We’re in an infinite regression in which we slowly and systematically believe fewer and fewer things until one day we find ourselves a sorry bunch of naked, emaciated lunatics writhing about in our own saliva and feces perpetually muttering, “I…don’t…. knowwww…” Alas! Had we only had the wisdom not to pursue wisdom! Had we only had enough answers to know not to look for answers! *end sarcasm* Seeking wisdom and answers is an eternally perilous engagement, but so is unexamined belief. We are responsible for everything – for what we examine and what we do not, for what we believe and what we do not. If we decide not to examine epistemology (or any topic for that matter) by saying, “It is safer here” we should know 1) if we are right, we cannot know why, and 2) we have not avoided the question, but have merely given our right to answer to someone else.

I think I succeeded last time in bringing us to a screeching and depressing halt in under 500 words. I thought this blog was supposed to be helpful? I’ll try to strike a more positive note here.

I notice that we seem to be doing fine until we start examining our epistemologies. We all believe things, and so seem to have had at least a functioning epistemology up to this point. Why does progress in epistemology stop the moment we start to pursue it? Wes, why was theology pleasant and relatively simple to you until you started studying it? Jon, why was the Trinity easier to believe in when you were 5 than it is now? DJ, fill in the blank: why were you content with what you knew about _______ until you read what ________ had to say about it? Does anyone else read this blog? Random guy from CTS, why is it that… ok never mind.

Because we’re running into such difficulty now, maybe we should ask ourselves what changed. Is our old, “easy” epistemology valid? If so, why don’t we just stick with it? Or have we even been using an epistemology in the past? Maybe we’ve gotten along without an epistemology, and that’s the way to go. Now, granted, an anti-epistemological epistemology is just a philosophy that curses itself, but maybe that’s how it should be.

No.

Major proposition #1 – All persons hold belief because of reasons

There was a time when we believed/thought nothing (before birth), now we believe and think many things; therefore, we have used epistemology to come to where we are right now. Ready for some syllogisms? Wow this is getting technical.

A: All belief follows some epistemology
B: We believe things
C: All our beliefs follow some epistemology

Put another way:

A: All events have causes
B: All beliefs are events
C: All beliefs have causes

Another…

A: No event occurs without a reason
B: Belief is an event
C: No belief occurs without a reason

If everything we believe can be traced back to a single or multiple causes, what are they? At this moment, we could really get mired in the breadth of this topic. Is the question what is the cause of EVERYTHING I believe?? Wow. Let’s narrow it a little to the stated purpose of this blog: the Christian faith.

Ok, that’s enough. I can feel your attention slipping. I’ll leave it there. We have a few talking points here already. Do you agree? Lingering question: for what reasons do you believe in Christianity?

Epistemology 1 - Introduction

I want to start a series of articles on epistemology. Everyone should/can write a note, a thought, one line maybe to contribute to this. I really have no plans for this, and no idea what topics will be covered, how those topics will fit or not fit together, or how long the series will be. I do know, however, that epistemology is to me at this moment the most overarchingly important question I face.

First, what is epistemology?

The word "epistemology" has two distinct meanings:

• As an academic study (an inquiry): Epistemology is the study of the method by which we acquire knowledge, the study of the rubric by which we evaluate all of life, the study of the question, “what is true about going about finding what is true?”
• As a pragmatic method (a conclusion): Epistemology is the useful method by which one approaches truth claims. This side of the definition includes ownership of epistemology, and not just study.
  

Definitions other people came up with:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology

When I took Dr. Cushman’s philosophy class last year at Northland, epistemology was presented by lecture and textbook as one branch of the tree of philosophy. The branches were: God, Man, Metaphysics, Purpose (teleology), Ethics, and Epistemology. Presented thus, we may learn to approach epistemology as one of six (or more) “ultimate questions.” This isn’t quite right. Epistemology is not like the other categories in one main way: whereas the other categories are primarily contentual, epistemology is methodological. The other categories emphasize what content you believe about them specifically, while epistemology emphasizes what method you use universally. Put another way, the other categories present the question, “what do you believe?” while epistemology presents the question, “how do you believe?” If the other categories are destinations, epistemology is a road.
From this I conclude that epistemology is more indicative of, more responsible for, more…pertaining to the composition of a person’s character (beliefs, attitudes, convictions, etc.) than any other topic of study, bar none. It is the philosophy of philosophy; it is the ultimate question - how do you know?

Reasons why epistemology is the ultimate question:

1. One cannot believe something academically without using an epistemology of some form (regardless of latency).
2. One cannot believe something religiously without using an epistemology.
3. One cannot act involuntarily (for example, lose control of emotions) without using an epistemology.
4. One cannot observe something without using an epistemology.
5. One cannot argue any point without using an epistemology.
6. One cannot reach any conclusion at all without using an epistemology.

Does it seem to you right now that I am straining a little on this point? That I very much want to demonstrate the supremacy of epistemology, and am willing to exaggerate a bit to prove my point? You may object, “How, if epistemology is so important to life, do not 7 out of 10 people know what it is?” A very good point that gives us an important observation. If we talk about epistemology in the sterile, scrubbed-up words of academia, yes, it is irrelevant to life. Who even thinks about epistemology? That’s the point – no one. Epistemology defines our lives so thoroughly that we cannot see it; it is so responsible that we do not consider it responsible at all. Philosophers sound the strangest when they describe the most obvious things. Obvious things sound strange when described. The word “epistemology” fails to register with us because it describes something so close to us that we never noticed it before. The question, “why do you believe that?” sounds horrifyingly obvious to us when we hear it because, certainly we must have a reason, but we just don’t know what it is. How did we never ask ourselves that?

Ok, well let’s ask ourselves.

When approaching the topic of epistemology, we meet immediately, immediately, with an impasse. Epistemology asks, “how do we go about believing?” And right now we’re asking, “how do we go about epistemology?” So it seems we need an epistemology for epistemology. Then we need a third epistemology. And so on. If my six propositions above are correct, then we cannot even budge our toes onto the subject until we have figured it out completely.

So, how shall we progress? Thoughts?