My Attempt At Religious Epistemology

I have written this to consolidate space on Facebook where there is a very interesting covnersation taking place. My plan is to write this and then hope that all the right people will be exposed to its content so that way it does not seem as though I am trying to "hog" the conversation. Plus, it gives me a change to take some time and write out something that I think needs some vast explaining. A blog is perhaps not the best place to elaborate on such complex pontifications, but for the moment it is better then a Facebook post.

The issue is epistemology. (Yeah, exciting!!!) I will have in the back of my mind a conversation which prompted this blog, but I will also be elaborating my own insights and for the most part taking this whole thing in my direction. So here we go... What seems to me, to be the main issue is the involvement of the will in the construction of knowledge, or to a lesser extent the formation of beliefs.

What is the difference between knowledge and belief? Knowledge has been defined as Justified, True, Belief (JTB). Thus, you know what you believe, but what you believe you cannot necessarily claim you know. This takes some nuance understanding. I think most people would say that if they believe it they know it, and because they know something they can believe something. Belief seems to be something that we will, whereas knowledge seems to be something that happens in lieu of proper cognitive functioning.

For me personally, I take it as a mark of identification when I say that I believe something. I am saying that I deliberated on the matter. I weighted the options, and I came to an informed decision regarding all the available information to say that YES! this represents me. I take knowledge to be that pool of information I look to to form my beliefs. So my experience of JTB is a bit reversed. I use knowledge to form beliefs, not the other way around.

But then again. I also have beliefs which I would not categorize as knowledge. I believe vanilla milkshakes are better then chocolate ones. Now it is true that it is a knowable fact that our senses are subjective and that I easily know that vanilla milkshakes taste better than chocolate ones, but I wouldn't say that I know them to be categorically better, I only believe them to be. In this sense, belief operates more like opinion then in the former sense, of self-identification. Hence, my belief in the heliocentric theory is by far and perhaps even categorically different then my belief in vanilla milkshakes.

So at the start, I want to make a distinction between opinion and belief. I will state that we believe only that which we are willing to identify with, as my definition for belief. And that we acquire opinions through our experiences. Now, I wish to add that by opinion, I do not mean something weak, as something to which we say, "That is only your opinion." Opinion in this sense, is our own private and isolated assumption of what reality represents. I have an opinion that vanilla milkshakes are better then chocolate ones, because that is my own private and isolated experience. Just the same I have an opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. Opinions are not arbitrary. It just so happens that the latter is justified through an epistemological process that enables me to claim that this opinion is consistent with a body of objective knowledge. Thus, knowledge, I believe, ought to be defined as Justified, True, Opinion (JTO). I even might change it again, at a future date to (WTO) Warranted True Opinion, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

So with this in mind, let's knock out the easy one, what is True? Without getting too technical, I think it is pretty much a universally agreed upon statement that Truth is that which reflects reality.

Pretty much Epistemology has been concerned about the area of Justification, and how it operates in order to confirm opinion into knowledge. Deduction is the first thing to mention in order to justify opinion. Deduction is a method whereby two opinions, or in the case premises form to make a conclusion that could only be formed through the synthesis of the two premises. Thus, it is often, but not necessarily the case, that deduction expands our knowledge. It makes certain that we arrive at justified, or right, conclusions. But deduction does nothing to give us this certainty regarding our premises.

This is often regarded as the problem of Induction. Now, many have tried to solve the problem of induction, but for the most part all agree that it is a problem that doesn't have a real answer, or to put another way... induction cannot have an answer, because induction is the answer. Induction is the method whereby our opinions are formed and hence cannot have a real opinion about itself. Thus, it becomes hard to define induction because we are only left with the ability to speculate, but the one I will choose for this blog is one that I have gathered from a few sources, but my main one is Objectivist Epistemology, which in my mind defines induction as the integration of experienced quantities into conceptual entities. This integration having two components. The first being mathematical. Parts which integrate into wholes have an intrinsic mathematical relation. Thus, are basic knowledge structure is in many ways a mathematical one at its most fundamental level. And the second being causal relations. For parts to be able to form a whole there must be some relation between those parts which are causal.

Think of opinions as being puzzles. For a puzzle to get put together you need quanta, you need pieces to the

puzzle. These pieces have to fit together. Thus, there each piece connects to the next is like a causal relation between the pieces. and you need a system to expiate the process. Each piece has a connector or a divot. This already implies a mathematical system; 1 or 0. But there is also the grid that can be overlaid over the puzzle, again mathematics. And we can detect certain patterns that will emerge as the picture comes together to select what pieces will fit where. Pattern formation and recognition is once again a mathematical product. So we see that if the completed puzzle forms valid opinions then we can have a good foundation to call this knowledge.

But there is one more thing that I feel is of crucial importance. And that is the self-correcting behavior of induction. Induction does not, nor can it, give us the same certainty for our premises as deduction gives us for our conclusions. But with the method of induction being both mathematical and causally related is a good indicator that it can be truth-bearing, but at the same time it gives us no ability to rely on it. After all, we know people have had wrong opinions, and we know that very smart people have promoted very wrong ideas about how reality worked. I think to clarify this point it is important to take a side step to understand why the self-correcting nature of induction is important, and why I think it is a basis for what I will lead to my final conclusion.

In figuring out the dynamics of knowledge one thing always keeps coming up in the background and that is the distinction between the will and the intellect. I think people identify most with this reality because it is something that is so common and experienced at just about every point in life. We want something that we know we can't have. will vs. intellect. We want to know more about the universe so we study astronomy. will assists intellect. We learn that eating certain foods can cause diabetes, and our desire for such foods decreases. Intellect assists will. The relationship between our will and our intellect has existed since the dawn of man. And it does not look like a struggle that is going to end with the progression of epistemology. But it has been generally practiced that in order to truly define induction we have to eliminate the will as much as possible. So typically, that which we would call knowledge has the least amount of "exposure" to our will as possible.

This leaves us is somewhat of a quandary, because it seems for all intents and purposes the will is useless and only a hindrance to that which can be described as our essence, or that which has become the defining characteristic of our humanity... our mind. Now it is true that our minds are a collection of many things... memories, feelings, intuitions, and knowledge to say the least, but among these contenders for who "rules the roost" of our mind knowledge is clearly the winner. Our knowledge is our access to reality. So it would seem that the wills purpose in all this is to simply supply focus and cognitive emphasis on where our inductive mechanisms are directing it. In the scheme or rational epistemology the will is but a mere servant.

But I digress. The reason I bring this up, is because when we identify the self-correcting nature of induction we see how little part the will plays in concept formation. It's okay to be wrong, because being wrong does not threatening the process. Being wrong is not blameworthy in rational thinking. Unless, of course, one refuses to admit they are wrong, but that is stubbornness, not rational thinking. When one is wrong, they can be corrected and no guilt or shame is ever owed, because of an error resulting from induction. If a road leads us down a path to induce a false conclusion, it is hardly ever entirely false, and its error will present itself soon enough, either as more opinions generate which question the reliability of the belief, or as more examples produce the inconsistency of its actuality. Either way, it is induction working as how it is supposed to work. It is not a guarantee of certainty, but rather a guarantee of inculpability.

There is no blame where the will is not present. Rational beliefs ought to form and be justified under conditions where the will has as little involvement as possible. Induction may produce error, but induction is self correcting. When we use it the errors will resolve and process is not harmed.

So induction is the justification which turns opinion into knowledge. So when a person says, "I know man is mortal", "I know man evolved from lower species", "I know the Holocaust happened in the past", "I know democracy to be the best political system", or "I know the expansion of the universe leads us to a singularity in the past" they are using inductive reasoning to state what is justifiable knowledge. Many of these statements we do not have 100 percent definitive evidence, but there is enough reliable information which causally relates and demonstrates mathematical consistency to induce that these statements do in fact relate truth.

No, this doesn't mean that they have to be absolute in order to achieve this. It doesn't mean that we can't modify or adapt its content. Nor does it mean that we are blameworthy even if one is entirely wrong. In this way, man is but a receptical of justified knowledge. We apply reason, but the content that arises on our mind because of this application is mechanical and necessary. We have no ability to resist what opinions form in our minds from the application of reason. In this sense, we are but the instruments of reality, once we make the choice to be "rational". The body of knowledge which arises from the application of reason forms from necessity, and not from choice, or arbitration. Focus your mind on anything. You have the power to think, or not think, but you do not have the power to alter what you come to know once we choose to think. You can choose to live life blind, close your eyes, and turn reality into a blurry mess, but once you do you abdicate your own participation in existence. You become nothing.

This fact has some unsettling consequences. But it also has some profound insights, once they are realized. I made certain statements like, we are mere tools of reality, or our knowledge is but a by-product of reason. These terms have very little to do with accountability, responsibility, or ownership of self. How can we make sense of our life in the world, if all we know is but a mere fabrication of the necessary forces we have no control over? Why would one person be held accountable for whether or not they believe in God, when knowledge of Him either arises or doesn't through no fault of our own.

Here's where we take a turn. Now that we understand the inductive and rational process by which justified knowledge forms, I wish to propose how we come to form beliefs through the body of our knowledge. I have maintained a distinction between what I call "opinion" and what I call "belief". Now for the most part epistemologists just use one word, "belief". And this can be done as long as we still maintain a distinction within that term belief. I have chosen to use two terms, to make it easier, but in reality what we are referring to are beliefs which are justified and beliefs through which we identify our self in the world.

Rational epistemology can account for the entirety of all reality except one thing. Our self. When we begin to think we can easily refer to the concretes of our inductive method that form the justification of our opinions and turn them into knowledge, but when I say things like, "I know I am a child of God", "I know love makes the world go around", "I know that there is a place for me", "I know I am important, unique, and significant", or "I know death has no power over my life". These are phrases that I have no justified opinion for, but yet I identify with them. They give me a sense of belonging and relatedness to a world where it seems my choice and will have no place to assert itself. Now, I used the word "know" in these phrases to show the relativity that exists between words like "know", "believe" and "opinion". In many ways these terms are interchangable and it can be difficult to seperate out the meaning and intention behind them. According to my argument it is most apt to use the term "believe" in the above statements, but I do not hesitate to mention that in our attempt to self-identify ourselves in this mechanical reality we use knowledge in an analogous sense. Thus, our beliefs which identify our self in an ordered construct are analogous to the body of knowledge we possess.

In this sense, our beliefs are integrated in the same way that our knowledge is, but is a dynamically opposed dialectic. Where knowledge seeks to eliminate the will in order to justify itself, belief to be justified, if that term can be used, must maximize our will. This would seem to suggest that beliefs are then inherently anti-intellectual. Which seems to be a most unfitting set of circumstances, but that is not at all the case. Our beliefs arise out of the self-expression of our body of knowledge. It is our knowledge which forms the grounds for belief, but they do not limit or restrict our beliefs, except in the manner to which they are communicated.

For instance, the belief which states "I am a child of God" does not need to say that one of my biological parents is an actual and literal "God". But it responds to the body of knowledge I possess about biology and holds certain analogous content in relation to such an integration. By child of God, I mean in a rather analogous sense that God is my father. Which reflects the sense that I find myself to be god-like in a certain way (hence the self-identification) and that God is above me.

Thus, there is never a case in which my beliefs must contradict my body of knowledge, nor must I think that my body of knowledge limits my beliefs in a certain way. Thus, the idea of God, in this sense, does not need to exist in causal or algebraic relation to my body of knowledge. I do not need to explain my belief in God through rational justification. My belief in God can stand as an expression of my own identity. My belief in God can simply say, "I identify with God" without naming the reasons or causes of why God exists or inhabits objective reality.

The problem occurs when we try to justify God according to the body of our knowledge. The problem happens when we do not respect the division between the beliefs which we identify with, and the beliefs which are rationally justified. It happens on both sides. It happens when atheists try to claim that all self-identification is a part of the process of rational justification, and it happens when the theist tries to claim that belief in God is rationally justified.

In our theory of knowledge we saw how the self-correcting nature of induction served to give us the ability to remove, or accept the removal, of our will from the domain of knowledge. But yet, the will in not entirely absent, is it? remember our locution? As long as we choose to be rational! Reason is a choice, but it is such a choice that once it is made we become subject to the necessity of rational thought. In a sense, it is a choice to destroy our choice. Thus, in like manner our intellect can assent to its own inability to truly be able to represent the entirety of our being. It is a gambit of sorts. Our will and intellect can co-habitate with one another given a certain agreement be made between them. Our will submits to reason and our intellect submits to belief. But the terms of this truce must be observed. They exist in tension with one another to be sure, but in this a dialectic can be formed between our knowledge and our belief. Just as knowledge is integrated quantitative thinking, so too our beliefs are integrated qualitative thinking.

The constant between them is integration. And this is expressed in the dictum that as reality is itself an integrated whole, so too our self must be an integrated whole as well. It is our ability to assert our self in reality which makes belief an aspect of our will, so important. With this being the case, beliefs are not given open access to simply apply themselves willy-nilly there is a structure to work in. The belief must exist in reference to self, and it must be an analogous extension of our body of knowledge. Thus, to believe in the tooth fairy as an adult is ridiculous. To believe in unicorns and spaghetti monsters is still unfounded.

But the self as it is can assert a ground for its being in something eternal, infinite, and self-creating. It can without unanalogous content identify with God. The self can ascribe certain beliefs as pertaining to faith in the sense that certain beliefs transcend normal categories on the analogous relation to our body of knowledge that certain realities are inductively transcendent, like math and causality. In this sense, faith is not mathematical, but it is certainly analogous which is a kind of math, but only in the sense that both seek an integrated whole. So we can have a justified, if we can use that term, belief which seeks to self-identify, and a faith which seeks to transcend our self all on the basis of integration without provided any inconsistency with our own body of knowledge. And we can claim that these beliefs are knowledge and that this knowledge is belief through our own involvement in dialectical and analogous existence. I can say that I know God, even if I have no justified belief in God, because my own experience of life and reality immerses me in this dialectical process of ambiguity and freedom.

Note, that it is only when I seek to justify my knowledge of God that I must drag myself out of this nebulous

fog and use actual technical terms. When I say that I know God, I can't allow myself to believe this is a rationally justified expression. I must retain in my psyche and my self the reality of my own limitations and the nature of my belief. My knowledge of God is dynamic and in flux, it is not the product of a necessary chain of rational induction and deduction. It can be expressed through certain propositions, but the reality is that it is simply an assertion of my will to identify with the integrative process of reality. Courage is the word I use to this act of will to identify and integrate with reality, and when combined with this process it becomes "The Courage to Be". In this sense, reality is ultimately integration. The One which unites everything without diminishing anything.

2013 In Review

Well, another year has come and gone, and what's more this year was a year that ought to never have occurred. What's that mean? Well, if you remember in 2012 the world should have ended on December 21. So 2013 was a year of new beginnings.

This year was a transformative year for me, as well. Spiritually there were many things that marked a dramatic change for me. I faced many doubts and trials, and I feel that I overcame many obstacles. I have come out stronger, and I feel deeper connections with my family and friends that have stood by me and supported me.

As some people know, I turned away from my faith and my beliefs in Christianity some time ago, and came back to faith under the conviction that I was denying apart of myself. This led me to gradually enter into new and deeper understandings of how we relate to God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Church and my beliefs in Christianity were restored. Though, admittedly, through this journey I have never fully felt at home in the Christian faith.

This year, many of my beliefs were challenged... My belief in the resurrection. My belief in the Bible as being inspired. My belief in the Spiritual Presence. My belief in the Church to represent the People of God. In all this, my belief in myself was challenged, as well.

I had no sense of how to identify myself as a Christian, while it seemed that most of my Christians beliefs were opposed or even heretical to what many Christians around me would think. But as the year ended I began to have a breakthrough. I found others like me, but more importantly, I made a choice. I resolved to be the person I wanted to be. To not judge my own faith by the standards of other people, and to include as many as possible into my world. I resolved that my beliefs, if there were wrong would work themselves out as long as my heart was open to those around me, and as long as I didn't feel the need to hide who I am.

Like it or not, I think many Christians feel a hidden fear to conform and identify their beliefs with what is seen as what "most" Christians believe. We all question our beliefs or think that certain beliefs don't make sense, but believe anyways, because somehow we think this is the "Christian" think to do. We all want to be good Christian boys and girls, but when I decided to come back to Christianity I decided in my heart that I would never let fear rule my faith, and this was the last battleground I needed to fight. I don't need people to think I am a good Christian in order to do the work of God. Or more importantly, I do not need the approval of others in order to believe that I am approved of God.

The Gospel is new every day, and for every person, and at every age. This year this was my Gospel.

There are some serious events to consider for the year in review. My son was born in the spring. I left a church that I had been member of for over ten years. I accepted a job promotion which gave me a new schedule. And I got a vasectomy. Leila started school this year. And Bella began 2nd grade.

My only regret for this year is that in my quest to understand my Christian identity I lost a good friend. I wish things could have been different, but I was put in a position where I was expected to deny who I was and that was unacceptable to me. What is encouraging to me is that I came out better because of it, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone. And I am hopeful that reconciliation is still possible in the future.

But I feel certain now of the work that God has for me, and I have overcome the obstacles that would hinder my faith in pursuing this goal. It is the Gospel that is my passion, and it is in communicating this Gospel to everyone. I have my bearings now, and am charting my course. I am going to build a community of faith. When and where. I do not know, yet. Maybe this year things will get clearer. But for now this is where I am at. May the next chapter begin!